Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. On 18.10.2013, petitioner's husband Jacob K Jacob died. Therefore Ext.P1 Partnership was reconstituted by the petitioner with the brother of Jacob K Jacob named Joseph Martin Jacob and is conducting the retail outlet under Dispensing Pump Selling License (DPSL) No.P/SC/KL/14/493. Subsequently, the 3 rd respondent renewed the licence as per Ext P7 up to 31.12.2025. Accordingly, Ext P8 agreement was again entered into by the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent for a period of 5 years. While so, the 4 th respondent filed a complaint before the 3rd respondent alleging that respondents 1 and 2 have no legal right over the property to store petroleum products in view of Rule 152 (1) (i) of the Petroleum Rules 2002 and a show cause notice was issued to the 2nd respondent to which a reply was given. The 3rd respondent without adverting to the legal rights of respondents 1 and 2 regarding fixity of tenure under Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act suspended the licence as per Ext P9. The petitioner was not heard before issuance of Ext P9 and thereupon he approached this court filing WPC No. 8322/2023 and this court as per Ext P10 order set aside Ext P9 with a consequential direction to 3rd respondent to re-hear the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent as per Ext P11 order upheld the order of suspension.

7. The petitioner would contend that Ext P11 is bad in law in as much as it declared Ext P9 order of suspension is in order, which has in fact been set aside by Ext P10 judgment. Respondents 1 and 2 have the right of fixity of tenure under Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act and therefore Rule 152 of the Petroleum Rules 2002 is not applicable in the facts of this case. For the same reason, the decision in Shri. Albert Morris v. Chandrasekharan [2006 (1) SCC 228] is also not applicable. It is for the competent Civil Court to declare whether respondents 1 and 2 are having right of fixity of tenure. None of these crucial aspects were considered while issuing Ext P11 order.

15. Section 152(1)(i) of the Petroleum Rules 2002 mandates that every license granted under the Petroleum Rules shall stand cancelled if the licensee ceased to have any right to the site for storing petroleum. The only question to be considered is as to whether as on date respondent Nos 1 and 2 have any right to the site for storing petroleum. The contention of the 4 th respondent is that the original lease deed of 1964 is for a period of 20 years and the period of lease has expired on 30.11.1983 and the 1 st respondent has obtained a decree in O.S. No. 146 of 1986 before the Munsiff's Court, Mannarkkad that the defendant shall execute a renewal/license/lease for a period of 20 years. It is the contention of the 4th respondent that even that period of 20 years is also over by 30.11.2003 and that thereafter no fresh lease deed was executed and therefore, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has no right of site as provided Rule 152(1) of the Petroleum Rules 2002. It is the contention of the 4th respondent on the basis of Ext R4(b) decree in O.S. No.149 of 1996 that the decree is only for execution of a lease deed for a period of 20 years from 01.12.1983 and that there is no further direction that the lease deed should be extended on the expiry of the 20 years period. The learned Counsel for the 4 th respondent handed over to the Court a copy of the judgment in the said suit, perusal of which would show that the Civil Court has granted a decree directing the defendant to execute a lease deed for further period of 20 years from 01.12.1983, is on the strength of a recital in Ext A1 registered lease deed dated 30.01.1964 that the lesser is liable to renew the lease for a further term of 20 years on a rental to be fixed and therefore, the lease was directed to be renewed by the Civil Court for a further period of 20 years, solely based on the said stipulation.

17. A similar issue was considered by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ltd. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others reported in Manu/KE/3546/2020, the relevant portions of which reads as follows;

"13. Under Rule 152 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 a licence is liable to be suspended or cancelled if the licensee ceases to have any right to the site for storing petroleum {see Rule 152(1)(i)}. The rights referred under the rules must be understood as an interest protected under law. The licensing authority is therefore, bound to examine the right of the licensee.