JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed to quash the orders dated 15.07.2017 whereby the retail outlet awarded in favour of M/s. Hamara Pump at Karwar was suspended with directions to the petitioner to get the dispute resolved with the partners so that the suspension of the dealership agreement may be revoked and also aggrieved of the order dated 15.7.2017 of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as the 'HPCL') in awarding ad hoc dealership to another outlet. 2. Petitioner has submitted that he had purchased the land from one Babu Lal at Village Kalwar, Tehsil Naina Distt. Bundi by registered sale deed and had applied for retail outlet. The petitioner's candidature was considered and he was allotted dealership of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil w.e.f 15.9.2004 vide letter dated 16.03.2005. Memorandum of agreement had already been executed between the parties on 15.9.2004. The dealership was registered as M/s. Hamara Pump on 28.08.2014. It has been stated that on account of intervention of the respondent Smt. Kailash Meena W/o Girraj Kumar was introduced as partner to the firm and dealership agreement was executed with the petitioner's firm on 16.11.2016. The petitioner submits that no investment was done by Smt. Kailash Meena and the partnership was dissolved and auction notice received was furnished to the respondent HPCL. The petitioner also submitted an application requesting for regular supply of petroleum product. However, the respondent suspended the dealership agreement vide letter dated 15.07.2017. and also allotted the said petrol pump to another person on ad hoc basis on the same date. It has been stated by the petitioner that respondents had been influenced by the husband of Smt. Kailash Meena in not continuing the supply to the petitioner's petrol pump and the respondent HPCL is forcing the petitioner to enter into a compromise with Smt. Kailash Meena, although there is no investment of the said partner and the petitioner has already dissolved the partnership firm. 3. In reply to the petition, it has been stated by the respondent HPCL that the retail outlet had been closed for more than three months and the respondents recognised both the petitioner and Smt. Kailash Meena as the dealers. 3. In reply to the petition, it has been stated by the respondent HPCL that the retail outlet had been closed for more than three months and the respondents recognised both the petitioner and Smt. Kailash Meena as the dealers. It is stated that the order of suspension has been passed referring to various communications taking place with regard to violation of dealership agreement dated 16.11.2016 and ad hoc dealer was appointed after meeting held with partner Smt. Kailash Meena who gave the written consent for appointment of ad hoc dealer. 4. Having noted the aforesaid submissions, this Court finds that the petitioner had been allotted the petrol pump originally vide order dated 16.03.2005 on the basis of agreement entered into between the parties dated 15.9.2004. The said agreement was with the petitioner alone. The subsequent agreement placed on record by the respondents shows that the same is in continuation of the earlier agreement. The petitioner continues to sign it as a partnership concerned with Smt. Kailash Meena. Vide letter dated 30.06.2017 the petitioner has informed of the dissolving of the partnership and has informed the authorities that the supply at the petrol pump be continued. The respondent-HPCL vide its order dated 15.07.2017 has instead of examining the contents of the letter dated 30.06.2017 proceeded to hold that there is a dispute amongst the partners and the letter dated 30.06.2017 with regard to dissolving of the partnership has been treated to be not a valid defence and explanation. Further it has been treated as an inability to run outlet and accordingly the Senior Regional Manager has proceeded to note that in the interest of the petitioner the operation of outlet has been discontinued with an assurance and has noted as under : - "Further, we have also considered your request in your reply to Show cause Notice & minutes of meeting, in order to protect your interest, our arrangement for operation of outlet shall be discontinued and we assure you that as soon as the dispute among both the partners of M/s. Hamara Pump Karwar gets resolved, subject to any other new fact or any violation of Dealership Agreement or statutory rules etc. the suspension of Dealership Agreement may be revoked and you may be handed over operations of the outlet within a period of 30 days time from date such intimation of resolution of dispute among partners and undertaking for un-interrupted sales of petroleum products by the partnership firm. Considering the above facts, we invoke our rights under clause 30 of the dealership Agreement and suspend Dealership Agreement dated 16.11.2016 with immediate effect, whereby yourself Shri Dhanpal Meena & Smt. Kailash Meena were appointed as our dealer for retail sale of petroleum products in compliance with the terms and conditions of the said Dealership Agreement." 5. It is also noticed that by another order of the same date ad hoc dealership has been allotted for which interview was also conducted on the same date and the first empanelled candidate was allotted dealership for one year. 6. Everything has been conducted on one single day by the respondents. It is also noticed that so far as partnership is concerned, the same stands already dismissed after the dissolution of the partnership, the existing person who was also holding the rights of the dealership earlier, could not have been denied rights to continue the dealership. I also find substance in the submission of the petitioner that because Smt. Kailash Meena's husband is RAS Officer and her son is RJS Officer, the petitioner's stand has not been taken into consideration and there is a possibility of the respondent HPCL adopting a biased approach from the facts which have come on record. It is noticed that consent was taken from Smt. Kailash Meena for appointing ad hoc dealer and the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing. The proceedings conducted by HPCL are thus vitiated in law affected by the malice and biased approach. The contents of letter dated 15.07.2017 whereby the dealership has been suspended also indicated pressure being exercised on the petitioner to compromise with his erstwhile partner. HPCL being a public undertaking is not required to adopt such procedure. Power contained under clause 30 of the Agreement has been wrongfully exercised and without following the principles of natural justice the manner in which the dealership was suspended and ad hoc dealer was appointed on the same day show inherent power exercised by the respondent HPCL. 7. HPCL being a public undertaking is not required to adopt such procedure. Power contained under clause 30 of the Agreement has been wrongfully exercised and without following the principles of natural justice the manner in which the dealership was suspended and ad hoc dealer was appointed on the same day show inherent power exercised by the respondent HPCL. 7. Accordingly the order dated 15.07.2017 and the order of appointment of ad hoc dealership dated 15.07.2017 are quashed and set aside in view of the facts which have come on record. 8. In view of the dissolution of the partnership, the respondents are directed to continue with the petrol pump which has been allotted to petitioner since 2005 as a ST candidate. 9. The writ petition is allowed. 10. No costs.