Patna High Court - Orders
Sarika Murarka vs The Union Of India on 24 August, 2023
Author: A. Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A. Abhishek Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3011 of 2023
======================================================
Sarika Murarka, W/o Late Pradip Muraraka, Owner and Proprietor of M/s
Shristi Diesel, Coal Board Road, Barauni Begusarai at present residing at
Ward No. 10, Near Din Dayal Road Masjid, Phulwaria, Police Station-
Phulwaria, District- Begusarai, Pin Code- 851112.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Petrolium, Govt. of
India, New Delhi.
2. The Executive Director, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Office at Lok Nayak
Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Banglow, Patna- 800001.
3. The Divisional Retail Sales (Head) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Begusarai,
Divisional Office, P.O.- Barauni, Oil Refinery, District- Begusarai, Pin
Code- 851114.
4. Ram Narayan Rai, Son of Late Dulo Rai Resident of Village- Rajbara,
Pargana- Malaki, Police Station- Barauni, P.O.- Barauni, District- Begusarai,
Pin Code- 851112.
5. Raj Kishore Rai @ Chandan Rai, Son of Late Dulo Rai Resident of Village-
Rajbara, Pargana- Malaki, Police Station- Barauni, P.O.- Barauni, District-
Begusarai, Pin Code- 851112.
6. Ram Bahadur Rai, Son of Late Ramashraya Rai Resident of Village-
Rajbara, Pargana- Malaki, Police Station- Barauni, P.O.- Barauni, District-
Begusarai, Pin Code- 851112.
7. Ramanand Rai, Son of Late Ramashraya Rai Resident of Village- Rajbara,
Pargana- Malaki, Police Station- Barauni, P.O.- Barauni, District- Begusarai,
Pin Code- 851112.
8. Chandra Bhushan Rai, Son of Late Ramashraya Rai Resident of Village-
Rajbara, Pargana- Malaki, Police Station- Barauni, P.O.- Barauni, District-
Begusarai, Pin Code- 851112.
9. Siya Ram Singh, S/o Late Dukha Haram Rai Resident of Village- Rajbara,
Pargana- Malaki, Police Station- Barauni, P.O.- Barauni, District- Begusarai,
Pin Code- 851112.
10. Shailendra Rai, Son of Shri Ram Rai Resident of Village- Rajbara, Pargana-
Malaki, Police Station- Barauni, P.O.- Barauni, District- Begusarai, Pin
Code- 851112.
11. Narendra Rai, Son of Shri Ram Rai Resident of Village- Rajbara, Pargana-
Malaki, Police Station- Barauni, P.O.- Barauni, District- Begusarai, Pin
Code- 851112.
12. Balmiki Rai, S/o Late Dukh Haran Rai, Resident of Village- Rajbara,
Pargana- Malaki, Police Station- Barauni, P.O.- Barauni, District- Begusarai,
Pin Code- 851112.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.3011 of 2023(7) dt.24-08-2023
2/7
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar, Advocate
For the IOCL : Mr. Dr. K. N. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Union of India : Ms. Ansuman Singh, CGC
For Resp. No. 4 to 12 : Mr. Ajey Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
7 24-08-2023Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. The present writ petition is filed for the following relief(s):-
"For issuance of an appropriate writ, Order or direction for quashing that part of the Order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the Divisional Retail Sales Head of Barauni Division, Respondent No.-3 so far it retales for Keeping Pending the Re-Sitement proposal of the petitioner till the legal remedy upto High Court is availed by her in view of clause 1.1(e) of Re-Sitement policy of Indian Oil Corporation and that her Re-Sitement proposal would be considered after the legal remedy is availed. The order is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional, un-warranted and fit to be quashed directing the respondents concerned to consider the Re-sitement proposal of the petitioner which has been kept pending. The order is contained in Annexure-8 of this writ petition."
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner was allotted retail outlet by the second respondent. He further states that the petitioner had entered into Patna High Court CWJC No.3011 of 2023(7) dt.24-08-2023 3/7 a lease agreement with the owners of the property where the retail outlet has been commissioned vide registered lease deed dated 18.02.2006 (Annexure 1 of the petition). It is further stated that the said lease deed was for a period of 15 years and the lease period had come to an end in the year 2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the petitioner has sought renewal of the lease period with the owners but the owners are not inclined to renew the lease deed. Therefore, left with no other option, the petitioner has applied for re-sitement of the retail outlet.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the alternate site shown by the petitioner is right opposite to the existing retail outlet and therefore, the authority concerned ought to have conceded to the petitioner for re-sitement at the proposed new site but by virtue of the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure - 8), the authority has rejected the application made by the petitioner for re-sitement of the retail outlet. Learned counsel has stated that the reason shown for rejecting the representation is that the petitioner has an effective remedy of approaching the Civil Court for enforcement of his right to get extension of lease and without exhausting the said remedy the petitioner's application for re-sitement cannot be Patna High Court CWJC No.3011 of 2023(7) dt.24-08-2023 4/7 considered. Learned counsel has stated that reason given by the Corporation is legally untenable, the petitioner left with no other option, has approached this Hon'ble Court seeking direction to the respondents-corporation to allow his application for re- sitement.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-corporation has stated that the lease deed entered by the petitioner with the original owners has expired on 31.03.2021 and as per one of the clauses in the said lease deed, the petitioner has the option of getting the lease deed renewed and in case the owners are not coming forward to either renew or execute fresh lease deed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has the remedy of approaching the Civil Court for enforcement of the clause mentioned in the registered lease deed dated 18.02.2006. Learned counsel has stated that the alternate site proposed by the petitioner is not suitable as the same is of less area and number of permissions have to be taken by both the petitioner as well as the Corporation, further re-sitment involve lot of expenditure and is very time consuming. Learned counsel has further stated that as on date petitioner is in physical possession of the subject property and operating the outlet. The authorities after the expiry of the lease period are extending the Patna High Court CWJC No.3011 of 2023(7) dt.24-08-2023 5/7 dealership of the petitioner on yearly basis and there is no threat from the corporation for either cancelling the dealership or stopping of the business. Further the counsel has stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not exhausted the remedies available to him under the Civil Law and prays for dismissal of the CWJC.
6. As seen from the record, the petitioner has applied for running the retail outlet with the respondent corporation in the subject site which has being taken on lease from the original owners by registered lease deed dated 18.02.2006. The said lease deed was for a period of 15 years and the same has expired on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the Corporation for re-sitement. As no orders were passed on his appication for re-sitement, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court by way of C.W.J.C. No. 10036 of 2022. This Hon'ble Court vide order dated 05.08.2022 has directed the Corporation to consider the representation made by the petitioner. The step of the petitioner has been considered by the authorities and vide order dated 16.11.2022, the same was rejected. As seen from the rejection order, one of the ground taken by the Corporation is that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedies as available to him under the Common Civil Law Patna High Court CWJC No.3011 of 2023(7) dt.24-08-2023 6/7 for enforcement of one of the terms in the registered lease deed for renewal of the lease deed. A perusal of the registered lease deed more particularly Clause 16 thereof reads as under:-
"16. That on the cessation of the fixed term of this lease lessors and the lessee, their legal heirs and successors and assigns shall have right to avail extension of the fixed term of this lease on their mutual concept and desire only."
The petitioner ought to have approached the Civil Court for enforcement of the above clause, but for reasons best known to the petitioner, he has till date not done so. Moreover, it is stated across the bar that the landlords have also not filed any suit for eviction of the petitioner from the subject property. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents- corporation the proposal of the petitioner for re-sitement from the existing site to some other location is not only time consuming but number of permissions have to be taken from different authorities besides lot of expenditure has to be incurred by both the petitioner as well as the Corporation. The counsel for the corporation has stated that as on date the Corporation is not seeking to cancel retail outlet nor stopping the business activities of the petitioner. Therefore, no relief can be granted at this stage.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3011 of 2023(7) dt.24-08-2023 7/7
7. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction against the respondents-corporation to consider his application for re-sitement is without any legal basis. There is no infringement of any fundamental right of the petitioner which warrants any granting of relief under the Act 226 of the COI. The petitioner instead of approaching the Civil Court for enforcement of his rights under the registered lease deed has approached this Court and the same cannot be permitted. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy as available to him under common civil law for enforcing the rights under the registered lease agreement entered between the petitioner and the landlord.
8. With the above, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J) Bhardwaj/-
U