ORDER : G.R. Swaminathan, J. The petitioner Thiru.Kannappan, son of the fourth and fifth respondents established a sole proprietary concern in the name and style of “Kannappan Enterprises” and entered into a dealership agreement dated 21.10.2005 with Reliance Industries Ltd for a period of twenty years, ie., upto 21.10.2025 to carry on the business of a petroleum retail outlet. In December 2017, Kannappan Enterprises was converted into a partnership firm. The parents, namely, R4 and R5 were inducted as partners. A new dealership agreement dated 01.04.2018 was entered. According to the petitioner, the parents retired from the firm after receiving a sum of Rs.33.00 lakhs towards full and final settlement. They entered a memorandum of understanding dated 26.04.2021. Thereafter, the firm was reconstituted and two new partners were inducted. 2. Disputes arose subsequently between the petitioner on the one hand and the parents on the other. The third respondent M/s.Reliance BP Mobility Limited which was supplying petroleum products stopped their supply after March 2022 to the petitioner firm. The third respondent took the stand that their prior consent was not taken before reconstitution of the firm. It is also seen that Thiru.Sekkappan had lodged complaints with the third respondent. In these circumstances, this writ petition for directing M/s.Reliance BP Mobility Limited to continue to supply petroleum products to the petitioner came to be filed. 3. The petitioner also filed WMP(MD)No.9391 of 2022 seeking interim relief. On 04.07.2022, the following interim order was passed : “2. The petitioner is a partnership firm represented by Thiru.S.Kannappan. The said Kannappan is none other than the son of R4 & R5. The parents and the son were jointly running the petition mentioned retail outlet. Dispute arose between the parents on the one hand and son on the other. That led to reconstitution of the partnership firm by the son. The supplier namely M/s.Reliance BP Mobility Limited citing the said dispute refused to supply the products. Hence, this writ petition came to be filed. 3. I am of the view that the issue is eminently suitable for resolution through mediation. I therefore request the Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Kannan (retired) to endeavor to resolve the dispute between the parties. After discussion with the counsel on either side, the Hon'ble Mediator may fix his fees. 4. Hence, this writ petition came to be filed. 3. I am of the view that the issue is eminently suitable for resolution through mediation. I therefore request the Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Kannan (retired) to endeavor to resolve the dispute between the parties. After discussion with the counsel on either side, the Hon'ble Mediator may fix his fees. 4. Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, learned counsel appearing for R4 & R5 informed the Court that they will move the Hon'ble Mediator along with the order copy. If the petition mentioned retail outlet remains non- functional in the mean while, it is not going to serve anybody's purpose. I indicated that I am inclined to direct the supplier to continue to supply the products to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner will keep accounts. 5. At this stage, Thiru.Raghuvaran Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for R2 & R3 informs that Clause 25 of the agreement between the parties may come in the way. The said clause is as follows : “25.Supervision of RO: It shall be paramount condition of this agreement that the dealer himself (if he be an individual) or both partners of the dealer firm (if the dealer is a partnership firm consisting of two partners only) or the majority of the partners of the dealer firm (if the dealer is a firm consisting more than two partners) or the majority of the office bearers/elected committee members of the dealer Co-operative society (if the dealer is a co-operative society) or the Managing / whole time directors (if the dealer is a private limited company) as the case may be, shall ordinarily be resident in India and shall take active part in the management and running of the dealership and shall personally operate and supervise the same on full time and shall not under any circumstances, do so through any other person, firm or body either as Benami or through any 'Power of Attorney' or otherwise.” 6. At present, the re-constituted partnership firm comprises the petitioner, his daughter Ms.Sindhu Kannappan and one Mrs.Nachu. It is seen that the petitioner as well as his daughter are NRIs. They do not ordinarily reside in India. When this was pointed out, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the partnership firm will be reconstituted so as to bring the same in consonance with the aforesaid clause 25. It is seen that the petitioner as well as his daughter are NRIs. They do not ordinarily reside in India. When this was pointed out, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the partnership firm will be reconstituted so as to bring the same in consonance with the aforesaid clause 25. If the partnership firm is reconstituted in terms of Clause 25, R2 & R3 are directed to accept the same and resume supply of the petroleum products to the petition mentioned retail outlet. 7. The Writ Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of.” Contending that the interim order passed by this Court has not been complied with CONT P(MD)No.1050 of 2024 was filed. When the contempt petition was listed, it was decided to take up the writ petition itself for disposal. 4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel on either side. 5. Though very many submissions both on facts and law were made on either side, this writ petition can be disposed of on the short ground of maintainability. The learned Senior Counsel for R2 and R3 draws my attention to the decision reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 10186 (Kalpana Yogesh Dhagat v. Reliance Industries Limited) . In the said decision, it was held that writ petition is not maintainable against Reliance Industries Limited. The said decision was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 965 (R.S.Madireddy v. Union of India ). 6. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, I hold that writ petition filed against M/s.Reliance BP Mobility Limited is not maintainable. The petitioner firm will have to work out its rights in the manner known to law. I have not gone into the merits of the matter. In view of the decision that the writ petition is not maintainable, Cont P(MD)No.1050 of 2024 is closed. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.Connected Sub Application is also closed.