Bombay High Court
M/S Wejays Enterprises Jalgaon ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 14 March, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
1 WP No. 78/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.78 OF 2017
M/s. Wejays Enterprises, Jalgaon
Through its Partner,
Sanjay Jaykrishna Love,
Age:38 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o.:'Swatik' 5/B,
Mahabal Housing Society,
Behind People's Co-operative Bank,
Mahabal Colony,
Jalgaon Tq.& Dist. Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary
Home Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32,
2. Shri Panjarpol Sanstha, Jalgaon,
Through its President
Vijaykumar Ramchandra Kabra
Age: 60 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. 570, Vitthal Peth, Jalgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon,
3. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
A Body corporate having
registered office,
Indian Oil Bhavan,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandara West
Mumbai - 400 001,
Through its General Manager
...RESPONDENTS
*****
Mr.Shailesh P.Brahme, Advocate for Petitioner/s
::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:43:24 :::
2 WP No. 78/2017
Mrs.AV Gondhalekar, AGP for Resp.No.1-State.;
Mr.GV Wani, Adv. For Resp.No.2;
Mr.Anand Bhandari, Adv. For Resp.No.3.
-----
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
P.R.BORA,JJ.
DATE : 14
th
MARCH,2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER:-R.M.BORDE,J.)
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for
final disposal at the admission stage.
2) The petitioner was operating the petrol pump
allotted by Respondent No.3 - Indian Oil Corporation
at Jalgaon, Tq. and District Jalgaon. Respondent
No.3 is lessee whereas the plot allotted in favour of
Respondent No.3 for setting up the retail petroleum
sale unit is owned by Respondent No.2-society. There
was proceeding initiated by Respondent No.2 against
Respondent No.3 society for recovery of possession of
the leasehold premises. The proceeding initiated by
Respondent No.2 resulted in grant of decree for
eviction directed against Respondent No.3 and in
execution of the decree; the possession of the
premises has been taken over by Respondent No.2.
3) The petitioner contends that he was
operating the petrol pump on behalf of Respondent
No.3-Corporation and in execution proceeding
initiated by Respondent No.2, the possession of the
premises has been taken over together with the stock
of petroleum products as well as other infrastructure
erected on the plot in question.
4) The instant petition is only confined to the
issue of handing over the stock of petroleum products
stored at the plot/tenanted premises, which was let
out in favour of Respondent No.3-Corporation. The
petitioner further contends that at the time of
recovery of the possession of the premises, there was
a stock of approximately 2,121 liters of petrol and
4035 liters of diesel stored at the premises. As a
result of taking over the possession of the premises
by Respondent No.2, the petitioner is not in a
position to sell the stock of petroleum products.
The petroleum products being highly inflammable and
it would be unsafe and hazardous to permit Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 to store the stock of the petroleum
products at the tenanted premises and there is every
likelihood of occurrence of an accident or mishap, if
the petroleum stock remained idle. It is, therefore,
desirable to permit the petitioner to take possession
of the petroleum stock and dispose of the same within
specified time frame.
5) This Court while issuance of notice on
27.1.2017, issued directions to Respondent No.3 -
Corporation to take sample of the petroleum products
so as to ensure as to whether the stock is disposable
and can be sold to the customers.
6) An affidavit in reply has been filed on
behalf of Respondent No.3 Corporation, wherein it has
been stated that the samples of petroleum products
were taken and those were got tested in the
laboratory and it was found that the samples of the
petroleum products meet the requisite specifications.
A copy of the Test report dated 2.3.2017 is also
placed on record. It would, therefore, be
permissible for the petitioner to sell the petroleum
products in open market.
7) The counsel appearing for Respondent No.2
has no serious objection for permitting the
petitioner to enter the subject premises owned by
Respondent No.2 for a limited purpose of disposing
the stock of petroleum products. Respondent No.3 -
Corporation also does not have any objection if the
petitioner is allowed to sell the stock of the
petroleum products in open market through the retail
outlet which was operating prior to taking over the
possession of the premises.
8) In the circumstances, this Court deems it
appropriate to permit the petitioner to dispose of
the stock of petroleum products stored at the
premises owned by Respondent No.3 by selling the same
in open market through retail outlet which was
operated prior to taking over of the possession by
Respondent No.2, within two months from today and it
is accordingly directed.
9) The petitioner shall ensure disposal of the
stock of petroleum products stored at the premises
owned by Respondent No.2 within two months from
today.
10) The petitioner undertakes that he will enter
the premises only for the purpose of selling the
stock of the petroleum products and will not claim
any other right or entitlement in respect of the
premises in question.
11) The counsel appearing for Respondent No.3
contends that the petition/proceedings have been
initiated before the Appellate forum, challenging the
decision of the trial court, granting decree of
eviction against the Respondent No.3-corporation. It
would be open for Respondent No.3 to pursue the
remedy already availed of by the concerned
Respondent.
12) It is clarified that this Court has not
considered the contentions of the respective parties
touching the merits and it would be open for the
Appellate forum to deal with the aspects arising
before it in accordance with the provisions of law.
13) Rule is made absolute to the extent as
specified above. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(P.R.BORA) (R.M.BORDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
bdv/
