Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M/S.Sri Venkata Narayana Filling ... vs 1.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,Rep.By ... on 7 August, 2012
Author: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Writ Petition No.2401 of 2012
07-08-2012
M/s.Sri Venkata Narayana Filling Station, A partnership firm,Krishna District,
rep. byits Partner I.Jaya Hari Rao.
1.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,Rep.by its Managing Director, Mumbai and 4 others
^Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.P.Venugopal
!Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Mr.Deepak Bhattacharjee
< Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4: AGP for Civil Supplies
Counsel for respondent No.5: Mrs.K.Hemalatha
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash the proceeding in
Rc.B2/250/2011, dated 23-01-2012, of respondent No.4, whereby he has rejected
the petitioner's application for renewal of its Form-B license to run the
petroleum retail outlet.
The petitioner is a partnership firm, of which one of the brothers of
respondent No.5 viz., Dannapaneni Venu Gopala Murahari Rao is a partner. The
father of the said Venu Gopala Murahari Rao and respondent No.5, during his
lifetime, executed a lease deed in favour of petitioner- firm. Later the lessor
has died leaving behind the said Venu Gopala Murahari Rao, respondent No.5 and 4
others as his legal heirs. It appears disputes arose between the legal heirs of
the original lessor, as a result of which fresh lease deed was not executed by
them in favour of the petitioner-firm. The petitioner has, however, applied,
for renewal of its retail outlet license, to respondent No.4. Respondent No.5
has submitted a representation before respondent No.4 objecting to the renewal
on the ground that he also has a legal right over the land in which the
petitioner- firm is running the retail outlet. Purporting to rely upon Clause 7
of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies)
Order, 1980 (for short 'the Petroleum Products Order'), respondent No.4 has
rejected the petitioner's application for renewal as it has failed to submit
valid lease agreement over the land. Assailing this Order, the petitioner filed
the present Writ Petition.
During the pendency of the Writ Petition, respondent No.5 got himself
impleaded in the Writ Petition. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed separate counter-
affidavits.
Sri P.Venugopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the
provisions of the Petroleum Products Order do not envisage production of lease
deed over the property on which the retail outlet is run, for renewal of
license.
Smt.Hemalatha, learned Counsel for respondent No.5, placed reliance on
condition No.5 of Form- B license issued under the Petroleum Products Order,
which envisages that the dealer shall run the business without contravening the
provisions of the Petroleum Products Order and any other law relating to the
petroleum products. She also relied upon sub-clause (iii) of Rule 152 (1) of
the Petroleum Rules, 2002 (for short 'the Rules'), under which every license
granted under the Rules inter alia is liable to be suspended or cancelled by an
order of the licensing authority for any contravention of the Act or of any rule
thereunder or of any condition contained in such license, or by order of the
Central Government, if it is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for
doing so. She also brought to the notice of this Court sub-clause (i) of Rule
152 (1) of the Rules, which inter alia envisages that every license granted
under the Rules shall stand cancelled, if the licensee ceases to have any right
to the site for storing petroleum.
It is not the pleaded case of respondent No.5 that any statutory provision
prescribed production of lease deed by the existing licensee before the
licensing authority as a condition for renewal of its license. On the contrary,
in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, he has
candidly conceded that the Petroleum Products Order does not make for filing of
a lease deed compulsory and does not make it obligatory for the licensee to
produce a lease deed for renewal of license. He has, however, relied upon
Clause 7 of the Petroleum Products Order to justify his action for refusal to
renew the petitioner's license.
As regards the submission of the learned Counsel for respondent No.5, Rule
152 of the Rules does not get attracted to the facts of the present case because
it is not the case of respondent No.5 that one of the partners of the
petitioner-firm has no right over the site. At best, respondent No.5 can claim
an equal right over the land along with his brother, who is one of the partners
of the petitioner-firm and other co-partners. It is one thing for respondent
No.5 to claim right over the property. It is quite another thing for him to say
that his brother has no right over the property. In law, a partnership firm is
a compendium of partners, as it has no separate legal existence. As the brother
of respondent No.5 viz., Venu Gopala Murahari Rao, who is a partner of the
petitioner-firm, is, admittedly, one of the sons of the original lessor, his
right to be in possession of the subject property cannot be disputed unless a
competent Court of Law in a properly constituted proceedings declares that he
has no right to continue over the said property. The right of respondent No.5
and other co-owners is inchoate as of now. In the absence of any legal
provision stipulating production of a lease deed as a condition precedent for
renewal of license, the action of respondent No.1 in declining to renew the
license only on the objection raised by respondent No.5 is not sustainable in
law. Respondent No.5 is entitled to work out his remedies in accordance with
law by instituting appropriate proceedings in respect of the land in question.
By preventing the petitioner from running the retail outlet, no benefit will
accrue to respondent No.5.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned proceeding in
Rc.B2/250/2011, dated 23-01-2012, of respondent No.4, is set aside. Respondent
No.1 is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for renewal without
insisting on production of the lease deed. The petitioner shall be permitted to
run the retail outlet till disposal of its renewal application.
The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel, interim order, dated 01-02-2012, is vacated and WPMP.No.2981
of 2012 and WVMP.No.1570 of 2012 are disposed of.
________________________
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J
7th August, 2012