ORDER : 1. This petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India is originally filed for prayers, as under: “[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the form of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the decision dated 21-02-2015 produced at Annexure ‘G’ supra as being arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power, biased and violative of principles of natural justice and principles of fundamental justice. [B] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the form of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ pending admission and final disposal of this petition the respondents be restrained from implementing the decision dated 21-02-2015 produced at Annexure ‘G’ supra and continue to supply fuel and further permit the present petitioner and his agents and servants entering and selling fuel at the place licensed. [C] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the form of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ pending admission and final disposal of this petition the respondent be restrained from entertaining and deciding offers from other dealers and awarding licence for the Retail Outlet Unit awarded to the present petitioner to any other person.” 2. Pending the petition, on account of certain developments, the petitioner had sought amendment to the prayers, which are as under: “(B-1) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the form of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents of taking the possession of the petrol pump in light of the order dated 21-02-2015 produced at Annexure ‘G’ supra and without considering the fact that this Hon'ble Court was seized with the matter as petition was already filed, as illegal, arbitrary, and colorable exercise of power. (B-2)] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the form of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ pending admission and final disposal of this petition the respondent be restrained from awarding any licence to any other person or creating equity in favour of any other person. (B-2)] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the form of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ pending admission and final disposal of this petition the respondent be restrained from awarding any licence to any other person or creating equity in favour of any other person. (B-3) Your “Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ declaring agreement dated 9th September 2017 produced at Annexure ’G-1’ executed between present respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 as illegal, arbitrary and colorable exercise of power and not in consonance with the spirit of the statement made before this Hon’ble Court during decision in SCA 16128 of 2013 on 12-06-2014 produced at Annexure ’F’ and hence be quashed and set aside. (B-4) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus any other appropriate writ pending admission and final disposal of this petition the respondent No. 2 may be directed not to renew the licence granted to present respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 2 after its termination and further be pleased to direct respondent No. 2 not to grant licence of the outlet impugned in the present petition.” 3. The matter pertains to termination of license for retail petroleum outlet. It is submitted that on account of fault in dispensing unit machine, action was taken against the petitioner, by which the retail outlet to the petitioner partnership firm was terminated. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had entered into the License Agreement way back in the year 1983 and had conducted business of as per the License Agreement without any default since long. 5. However, in the year 2013, inspection was carried out, where alleged irregularities were found with regard to the one dispensing unit for which the Show Cause Notice came to be issued. The petitioner was issued Show Cause Notice to which the reply was given. It is submitted that however, the respondent did not give an opportunity of hearing and the action for terminating the license of the petitioner and granting of the dealership to some other person was undertaken. The petitioner was issued Show Cause Notice to which the reply was given. It is submitted that however, the respondent did not give an opportunity of hearing and the action for terminating the license of the petitioner and granting of the dealership to some other person was undertaken. The petitioner had therefore, filed Special Civil Application No.16128 of 2013, which came to be disposed of on the basis of the response given by the respondents. 6. It is submitted that the despite the directions issued by this Court in the previous petition, the petitioner had awaited for hearing but no intimation was given about the hearing and the impugned decision was taken. 7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Inspecting Team had checked two nozzles of the same dispensing units and out of the two, the Inspecting Team found that there was no irregularities in delivering by one of the nozzle, whereas second nozzle was short delivering Petroleum product. Though the allegations of tampering of the dispensing units was made, there is nothing to suggest that there is actual tampering as all the seals were found intact. It is submitted that if any tampering had taken place in the dispensing unit, the problem of short delivery would have occurred in both the nozzles and the fact that one of the nozzle was dispensing properly, falsify the allegations of tampering with the dispensing units. 8. It is submitted that the respondents wanted to take away the petrol pump from the petitioner and terminate his licence. They were waiting for an opportunity but could not succeed so long as the petitioner was in India. The respondents wanted to favour someone else, for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, immediately after taking possession of the petrol pump, they handed it to the person they had wanted to give it to and favoured him. The petitioner says with great respect that the respondents are a Government of India undertaking. They are not supposed work in unison with person they favour. For them a licensee should be a licensee, whosoever he may be. The petitioner has been a licensee for about almost three decades. He has been functioning without any complaint. Some authority, with a view to favoring some person of his choice, raised a frivolous issue only to terminate the licence of the petitioner. For them a licensee should be a licensee, whosoever he may be. The petitioner has been a licensee for about almost three decades. He has been functioning without any complaint. Some authority, with a view to favoring some person of his choice, raised a frivolous issue only to terminate the licence of the petitioner. This issue was also raised about two years back. The petitioner would dare say that he has been running the petrol pump since last 30 years. He was not new and so it cannot be said that he had ever committed any mistake. The mistake alleged by the respondents was frivolous. They committed an error and saddled the petitioner with the responsibility only with a view to favoring person whom they wanted to oblige. 9. It is lastly submitted that though specific direction was issued by this Court in order dated 12-6-2014 passed in Special Civil Application No.16218 of 2013, the petitioner has not been offered an opportunity of hearing and therefor, decision taken by the respondents is required to be quashed and set aside. 10. As against this learned Advocate for the respondent for the respondent - Petroleum Company referred to the Affidavit in reply and submitted that inspection was carried out in the year 2013, wherein irregularities of dispensing unit was found and the same was brought to the notice of the petitioner by way of Show Cause Notice. Procedures under Marketing Discipline Guidelines were taken and several letters were later on issued on 30-07-2013, 14-08-2013 and 29-08-2013 giving personal hearing, but the petitioner had chosen not to remain present under one pretext or the other. It is submitted that after the order, the order of this Court dated 12-06-2014 also opportunity was given to the petitioner and the representation were considered. The respondent- Petroleum Company came to the conclusion on the basis of evidence available that there was tampering at the dispensing unit, which is considered to be serious irregularities and therefore, action was taken against the petitioner. 11. It is submitted that the petitioner who has signed the Affidavit and contested this petition, has no authority, as the License Agreement holder was the partnership of which the petitioner deponent was not partner nor stake holder in the Petrol Pump. He was simple sitter as key person. 11. It is submitted that the petitioner who has signed the Affidavit and contested this petition, has no authority, as the License Agreement holder was the partnership of which the petitioner deponent was not partner nor stake holder in the Petrol Pump. He was simple sitter as key person. It is also submitted that in fact partners have not challenged the order of termination and have in fact accepted the order and handed over vacant and peaceful possession of the petrol pump, which after due procedure by the respondent- Company has been re-alloted to third party. The petitioner has not made such party. The petitioner is therefore, who is not authorizing and has no privy to of contract with the Petroleum company. 12. In rejoinder, learned Advocate Mr. C. J. Vin seriously contested the objection of locus of the deponent and submitted that the respondent-Company has already accepted the presence of the petitioner deponent as the key person and in his capacity as the key person of the partnership has addressed the communication in his name. The respondent- Company has therefore, taken up the contention which is not supported by any documentary evidence. 13. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that an agreement was executed on 06.09.1983 between the Respondent and (1) Mr.Vijaykumar Manharlal Shah, and (2) Mr. Jiten Manharlal Shah by which the Respondent appointed M/s S.J.Shroff (A partnership concern) as a dealer for operating the dispensing pump of the respondent on the terms and conditions set out in the license agreement. 14. That on 22.04.2013 an inspection was carried out at the subject Retail Petroleum Outlet by a team comprising Mr. S K. Barve, Chief Manager, Quality Control and Mr. Ashok Babar, Dy. Manager, Quality Control in the presence of the representatives of the Petitioner firm and they checked the delivery of Petrol (MS) product through nozzle of Dispensing Units (DU) having serial no. 02H736V Midco make with 5 Litre calibrated measure. The following irregularities were found while carrying out inspection: (a) One of the MS Dispensing Units having serial no. 02H736V Midco Make was giving short delivery of 320 ml from Nozzle No. 1 in three consecutive delivery checks with reference to standard 5 litre calibrated measure. (b) When the electric power of the said Dispensing Unit. having serial no. The following irregularities were found while carrying out inspection: (a) One of the MS Dispensing Units having serial no. 02H736V Midco Make was giving short delivery of 320 ml from Nozzle No. 1 in three consecutive delivery checks with reference to standard 5 litre calibrated measure. (b) When the electric power of the said Dispensing Unit. having serial no. 02H736V was switched off and then again switched on by using the electric switch provided on the side panel, the nozzle no.1 of the said MS Dispensing unit was delivering excess delivery of 240 hi per 5 litre calibrated measure on three consecutive checks. (c) Considering the consecutive short and excess deliveries, to check whether there is any Electronic tampering, the Electronic Register Assembly (ERA) of both the nozzles of the MS service from DU bearing sr. no.02H736V were removed in presence of the representative of the Petitioner firm and it was found that sanitation sticker on Microprocessor chip (EPROM) of both the Electronic Register Assembly was not proper and on connector on both the EPROMs of both the ERAs were found missing and the Microprocessor chip was also found to be tampered for giving deliberate short delivery of MS product. (d) Two dispensing units were provided by the Respondent for sale of MS/HSD product at the said retail outlet, whereas it is stated that when the sales team of the Respondent inspected the sale register of MS product, it was found that the Petitioner firm has sold maximum quantity Le. 85% of the product through the said dispensing unit having serial no. 02H736V which was giving short delivery. 15. That after finding the above mentioned irregularities the inspecting team of the Respondent suspended the sale of MS product from the said Dispensing Unit having serial No. 02H736V with immediate effect i.e. from 22.04.2013. It is submitted that in lieu of the above irregularities the Respondent issued a show cause notice dated 22.05.2013 to the petitioner firm to show cause within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of the notice as to why action including termination of dealership should not be taken against the Petitioner firm. It is submitted that the Petitioner firm in response of the above notice sent their reply to the Respondent vide letter dated 03.06.2013. 16. It is submitted that the Petitioner firm in response of the above notice sent their reply to the Respondent vide letter dated 03.06.2013. 16. That Respondent had in accordance to the clauses contained in the Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2012 issued several letters dated 30-07-2013, 14-08-2013 and 29-08-2013 calling the petitioner firm to remain present for personal hearing before the competent authority under the said guidelines. It is stated that in spite giving several opportunities for personal hearing the petitioner firm had chosen not to remain present under one pretext or the other. 17. That the possession of the site was taken in presence of the one of the partner of M/s. S. J. Shroff and he did not raise any objection, the same is recorded in the Panchnama done at the site on 10.03.2015. It is submitted that the petitioner firm is a licensee of the Respondent. It is settled law that the licensee holds the property only on behalf of the principal. His possession is the possession of the principal. A Licensee cannot stop or exclude the entry or possession of the Licensor. As a Licensee/Agent the Petitioner- has no possession of its own, since what is called a care taking possession is possession of the Principal. The Agent acquires no interest in the property of the principal and agent cannot therefore, non-suit the principal on the possessory title as agent. The Respondents have no right to remain in possession of the suit premises after termination of license. The Petitioner has no independent right to retain the possession of the premises in the question. 18. The panchnama drawn of taking over of the petrol pump is executed and produced as Annexure-R2 to the reply, relevant portion of the panchnama is as under : “Sudhanshu Kumar, Asst. Manager, Sale Vapi has prepare R.O.I.R. its complete report prepare, Jiten Manharlal Shah has sign in it. During the panchnama the old dealer has remove his goods, computer table etc. and some personal papers have also collect by them. And the company offices have made the checking in presence of panchas and inspect all the thing and prepare the report. Its photography and videography have been made. The above officers of Bharat Petroleum has take over the possession and hand over to Ranchhodji Nagarji Desai. Said Panchnama start at 11.00 am and completed on 13.00. Panchnama prepared in presence of panchas.” 19. Its photography and videography have been made. The above officers of Bharat Petroleum has take over the possession and hand over to Ranchhodji Nagarji Desai. Said Panchnama start at 11.00 am and completed on 13.00. Panchnama prepared in presence of panchas.” 19. Panchnama bears the signature of old dealer of petitioner-firm. When such document of handing over to the dealership, after following due process, has come on record, contest in the petition, case arose to the suspicion. The Court is therefore, examined License Agreement wherein on behalf of the petitioner-partnership–Mr.Vijaykant Manharlal Shah and Mr. Jitendra Manharlal Shah have signed and panchnama bears also signature of one of this partners namely Mr.Jitendra Manharlal Shah. Till such time, there does not appear to indicate the existence of deponent. However, after the arguments were concluded, the document purportedly Retirement-cum-Partnership Deed dated 17th September, 1987 has produced by the petitioner with a copy to other side. 20. This document is to the effect that agreement between Mr.Jitendra Manharlal Shah continuing partner No.2 – Mr. Vijaykant Manharlal Shah. Both of first part and the deponent of this petition-Feroze Bahadur Keshwani referred to as incoming partner. The Court observes in this document, Mr. Vijaykant Manharlal Shah after the word “retiring partner” appears to have been added subsequently. In any case, when the contention from the beginning of the respondent that the deponent of this, was not privy to the License Agreement and thereafter, change in the Constitution of the partnership has to take place only in with consultation /consent of the Petroleum Company, produced afore mentioned Deed dated 17th September, 1987, creates doubts or at-least raises disputed question of facts, which will have to be addressed on the basis of evidence and not under writ jurisdiction. 21. As part of the condition of the License Agreement dated 6th September, 1983 between the partnership firm and the Oil Company, clause-(s) reads as under : “(s) Not to change the constitution of the Licensees firm nor to dissolve the partnership nor admit new member as partner nor allow any partner to withdraw from the partnership without obtaining the previous consent in writing of the Company.” Even on this ground, deponent of the petition cannot be considered to be legal representative of the partnership firm. 22. 22. Lastly, when it has come on record that partner of the partnership-firm with whom, the License Agreement was entered, the development has taken place by which the possession of the retail outlet was taken over by drawing the panchnama and new person is duly appointed. 23. Hence, no case is made out for interference. In view of the aforesaid, the petition deserves to and hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.