Vijay S/O. Harinarayan Chaudhary vs M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12474 Bom

 16.wp.2771.2021.odt                                                                     (1)


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                                           WRIT PETITION NO.2771 OF 2021

                                 Vijay S/o Harinarayan Choudhary,
                                           // VERSUS //
                    M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., through its Director (Marketing),
                                      Mumbai - 400051 and others
   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                                                                           Court's or Judge's orders
           appearances, Court's orders or directions
           and Registrar's orders
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----
                                             Shri R. M. Sharma, Advocate for petitioner.

                                                            CORAM :                      AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 02/09/2021

Heard Mr Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the owner of Plot No.190, Ayurvedic

Layout, Nagpur, which was leased out to the respondent nos.1 and

2 for the purpose of erecting petrol pump on 30.4.2004 for a period

of 11 years 6 months, which lease expired on 29.10.2015. On

10.12.2015, a notice was given by the petitioner to the respondent

nos.1 and 2 indicating his intention not to continue the lease on its

expiry. A suit for eviction bearing RCS No.30/2016 also has been

filed before the Small Causes Court, Nagpur, in which the

respondent has already filed its written statement.

3. Mr sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited

attention of this Court to the Circular dated 4.1.2012, issued by

16.wp.2771.2021.odt (2)

respondent no.3 the Chief Controller of Explosives based upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C. Albert Morris

Vs. K. Chandrasekaran and others, (2006) 1 SCC 228. The said

Circular indicates that while considering an application for renewal

of the license under the Explosives Act for storage of petroleum, an

undertaking in the prescribed format was to be obtained from the

licensee before grant of renewal. The undertaking is in the

following format.:

"We/I hereby declare that We/I have not ceased the right to use the site for storage petroleum covered under Licence No. ....................... and no any litigation court proceedings are under way in any Court of Law in respect of the subject site."

4. It is the contention of Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the

petitioner that the respondents 1 & 2 without submitting such an

undertaking have obtained a renewal of licence from 23.12.2017 for

a period of ten years i.e. till 31.12.2027. He further contends that

such a renewal could not have been granted to the respondent nos.1

and 2 in absence of such undertaking, as admittedly proceedings for

eviction was pending before the Small Causes Court by way of RCS

No.30/2016.

5. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits

16.wp.2771.2021.odt (3)

that suit for specific performance has also been instituted by the

respondents against the petitioner, in respect of the above said land

bearing Special Civil Suit No. 664 of 2017, which is presently

pending notification before the Civil Court, Nagpur.

6. The learned counsel submits that in any case the

requirement of the Circular has not been met with as a result of

which the respondent no.3 could not have renewed the license for a

further period of ten years from 23.12.2017. He submits that efforts

on the part of the petitioner to elicit the copy of the undertaking

submitted by the respondents while seeking renewal of the license

has made with a stoic silence on the part of the authorities. In fact,

he submits that the undertaking of the year 2014 has been supplied

and there is absolutely no response as to on what basis the license has

been renewed in the year 2017.

7. Placing reliance upon C. Albert Morris (supra), learned

counsel submits that the possession of the respondent nos.1 and 2,

on expiry of the lease on 29.10.2015 and consequent to the

institution of RCS No. 30/2016 is a litigious possession and therefore,

it could not have been the basis for the renewal of the license.

16.wp.2771.2021.odt (4)

8. Considering the above submissions, issue notice to the

respondents, returnable in two weeks. The petitioner to serve the

respondents by all modes of service permissible in law, including

e-mail and WhatsApp.

9. Hamdast granted, if prayed.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J) Sarkate.