ORAL ORDER : RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. Present petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India for the prayer as prayed for challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2, dated 11.07.2017 on the ground stated in the petition. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri Percy Kavina appering with learned advocate Ms. Garima Malhotra with learned advocate Shri Bhash Mankad for the petitioners and learned counsel Shri Asim Pandya assisted by learned advocate Shri Manan Bhatt appearing on caveate for the respondent Nos. 1-Corporation. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Kavina has referred to the background of the facts and emphasized the manner in which, the partnership firm consisting of two partners were managed and the two petrol pumps managed by the partners. Therefore, while referring to the notice and other papers, learned Senior Counsel Shri Kavina has submitted that for the irregularities committed by one partner qua the petrol pump run by him, the petitioner may not suffer. He referred to the background and submitted that the petitioner No. 2 is running a separate petrol pump at Gotri and the dealership is common which has affected him. He, therefore, submitted that this issue may be examined vis-a-vis the other issues with regard to the dispensing units and the procedure to be followed. 4. Learned counsel Shri Pandya for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the guidelines have been framed by the respondent No. 1-Corporation and Clause 8.9 referred to the appellate proceedings. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioners may be relegated to the appellate authority which may consider the relevant issues on examination of facts. He has stated that, it is well accepted that for the act or irregularity of one partner, other partner would also be held liable. Moreover, it is a single dealership one cannot escape the liability for any irregularity committed for running one petrol pump by the partner of the firm. 5. Therefore, having regard to the nature of controversy and the specific submissions made by learned Senior Counsel Shri Kavina for the petitioner that though it is a single dealership agreement for running the petrol pump, the partners are managing two separate petrol pump. Therefore, both the partners are individually and independently running two petrol pumps though it is given by single dealership. Therefore, both the partners are individually and independently running two petrol pumps though it is given by single dealership. Therefore, any irregularity in managing the one petrol pump by one partner may not lead to effect on the another partner like the petitioner herein. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel Shri Kavina submitted that the petitioner may not be made to suffer for the deeds of the other partner. He, therefore, submitted that any irregularity regarding the dispensing unit and the procedure may be considered qua the another petrol pump run by the another partner and the petitioner's case may be considered separately even as per the marketing discipline guidelines. 6. In view of the specific contentions raised and having regard to the marketing discipline guidelines providing for the procedure in such cases, when the appellate authority is also provided, it would be in fitness of the things if the petitioners are relegated to the appellate authority as per the marketing discipline guidelines with a direction that the petition itself may be treated as the appellate proceedings before the appellate authority which may be examined with reference to the issue involved as referred to hereinabove- (1) Whether the single dealership in favour of the partnership would have bearing on another unit run by a partner separately; and whether the petrol pump run by another partner without irregularity could be given a chance and; (2) Procedure followed with regard to dispensing units as to whether the show cause notice issued for the alleged irregularity or manipulation. 7. The appellate authority shall consider the petition itself as appeal or the representation, copy of which may be forwarded to the appellate authority within a week. Thereafter, it shall be considered after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner preferably within a period of six weeks. 8. It is clarified that the appellate authority may examine the relevant issue on its own merits as this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. 9. With the aforesaid observation, present petition deserves to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Impugned notice is hereby quashed and set aside subject to the observation made hereinabove.