[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Choorapilan Jameela vs Padavanna Shamseer on 12 January, 2026
WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
1
2026:KER:1428
C.R.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 22ND POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
1 CHOORAPILAN JAMEELA
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O POOKODAN SUBAIR, POOKODAN HOUSE, VAZHIKADAVU,
MANIMOOLI P.O., MALAPPURAM,, PIN - 679333
2 POOKODAN NOUSHAD
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O POOKODAN SUBAIR, POOKODAN HOUSE, VAZHIKADAVU, MANIMOOLI
P.O., MALAPPURAM, P [BOTH PARTIES ARE REPRESENTED BY POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER POOKKODAN SUBAIR 67 YEARS, S/O MOIDEEN,
POOKODAN HOUSE, VAZHIKADAVU, MANIMOOLI P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679333
BY ADV SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 PADAVANNA SHAMSEER
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED, PADAVANNA HOUSE, KOVILAKAM ROAD, MANJERI P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, P NOW RESIDING AT PADAVANNA HOUSE, VARAKKULAM,
MANIMOOLI P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679333
2 M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9 ALYAVAR,
JUNG MARG, BHANDRA, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400051
WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
2
2026:KER:1428
3 CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL MANAGER
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, KOZHIKODE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND
FLOOR, PMK TOWERS, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673030
4 DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES
KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK C-2, 3RD FLOOR, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682037
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SHRI.NITHIN GEORGE
SHRI.M.V.HARIDAS MENON
SHRI.RITHU JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SRI.R.GITHESH
SMT.ANNA LINDA EDEN
SHRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
SMT.ANAVADYA SANIL KUMAR
SMT.ANJALI KRISHNA
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SMT. G. SHEEBA, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
3
2026:KER:1428
JUDGMENT
CR
1. Petitioners have filed this Writ petition seeking a Writ of
Mandamus to the Respondents to vacate and deliver
possession of the leased premises covered by Ext.P1
Registered Lease Deed dated 21.01.2004 in favour of the
Respondent No.1 and seeking a Writ of Mandamus to the
Respondent No.4 to cancel the Explosive License issued in
favour of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 for conducting Petroleum
Retail Outlet in the leased premises to the Respondent No.1 as
per Ext.P1 Lease Deed.
2. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners,
Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, learned Senior Counsel for the
Respondent No.1, Sri. S. Sreekumar, instructed by
Adv.Sri.Martin Jose P., and the learned Counsel for the
WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
2026:KER:1428
Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the Oil Marketing Company
and its Chief Divisional Retail Manager, Sri.Nithin George.
3. The contention of the Counsel for the Petitioners is that the
tenure of Ext.P1 Lease Deed is over by 31.01.2024 on
completion of the lease period of 20 years, and hence the
Respondents 1 to 3 have no right to continue in the leased
premises. The conduct of the Petroleum Outlet in the leased
premises by the Respondents is illegal. In such case, this Court
has ample power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to direct the Respondents to vacate the unauthorized
occupation of the Respondents 1 to 3. Learned Counsel relied
on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Albert Morris
v. K. Chandrasekaran and Others [(2006) 1 SCC 228], the decision of
this Court in T.M.Biju v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others
[2024 ICO 2567], which is confirmed in the Ext.P6 judgment of the
Division Bench in W.A. No.537/2025, and the decision of the
WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
2026:KER:1428
Bombay High Court in Vijay v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and
Others [MANU/MH/2380/2023] in support of his contentions. The
learned Counsel invited my attention to the terms of settlement
between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.1 which are
incorporated in Ext.P2 judgment of this Court, in which the
Respondent No.1 agreed that he shall follow the Rental
Agreement and he will not raise any objection to the terms and
conditions in the Rental Agreement and that he shall abide by
the conditions in the Agreement without fail. In the Ext.P1 Lease
Deed, he has agreed to surrender and deliver peaceful
possession of the leased premises to the Lessors on
determination of the lease, removing all installations and
restoring the premises to its original state and condition.
4. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 contended that
the prayers in the Writ Petition are not maintainable. The
Petitioners have to approach the Civil Court to evict the
WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
2026:KER:1428
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 from the premises. The decisions relied
on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners are clearly
distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the Lessee was the Oil
Marketing Company, which comes within the definition of 'State'
under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, which is amenable
to the Writ jurisdiction of this Court, whereas the Respondent
No.1 Lessee is a private individual, who is not amenable to the
Writ jurisdiction of this Court. There is a procedure for cancelling
the License issued under the Petroleum Rules, 2002, and the
Petitioners cannot bypass the said procedure and seek direction
to cancel the license. The Petitioners have already filed a
Commercial Suit before the Civil Court for recovery of
possession of the leased premises and for other reliefs, and the
same has been pending consideration. The learned Senior
Counsel invited my attention to Rule 152 of the Petroleum
Rules, 2002, in this regard. At any rate, the Petitioners cannot
WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
2026:KER:1428
seek the Writ of Mandamus without a demand to the
Respondent No.4 for cancellation of the license and the refusal
of the Respondent No.4 to cancel the license.
5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 advanced
arguments supporting the contentions of the learned Senior
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and also cited the decisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. and Another v. Dolly Das [(1999) 4 SCC 450] and Roshina T. v. Abdul
Azeez K.T. and Others [(2019) 2 SCC 329] to substantiate the point
that a Writ Petition is not maintainable when the dispute is
between private parties and when constitutional or statutory
rights are absent.
6. I have considered the rival contentions.
7. Ext.P1 Registered Lease Deed dated 21.01.2004 executed by
the Petitioners in favor of the Respondent No.1 is for a period of
20 years from 01.02.2004, and the same expired on
WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
2026:KER:1428
31.01.2024. The Lease was for conducting a Petroleum Retail
Outlet by the Respondent No.1 in the leased premises of 30
Cents after putting up the necessary constructions for the same.
Respondent No.1 is given the right to sublease the premises to
Respondent No.2 Oil Marketing Company as per Ext.P1 Lease
Deed. Admittedly, Respondent No.1 has been conducting a
Petroleum Retail Outlet in the leased premises as a dealer of
Respondent No.2. There is nothing on record to prove that there
is any sublease in favour of the Respondent No.2. It is the
Respondent No.1 who is in possession of the leased premises
and it is the Respondent No.1 who is to be evicted from the
leased premises on expiry of the Ext.P1 Lease Deed. The
Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition claiming that the Writ
Petition is maintainable before this Court for eviction in view of
the decisions of this Court in T.M. Biju (supra) and the Ext.P6
judgment. In those cases, the eviction was sought against the
WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
2026:KER:1428
Oil Marketing Company by the landowner. As rightly pointed out
by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and the
learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the Oil
Marketing Company therein was an instrumentality of the State
and hence comes within the definition of 'State' within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Since
Respondent No.1, who is a private individual, has been in
possession of the leased premises, it is the Respondent No.1
who is to be evicted from the leased premises and not the
Respondent No.2 Oil Marketing Company. Hence, the first
prayer for eviction of the Respondent No.1 could not be granted
in this Writ Petition, and hence the said prayer is disallowed.
8. The second prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus
to the Respondent No.4 to cancel the Explosive License issued
to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The Petitioners have produced
Ext.P5 Reply from the Vazhikkadavu Grama Panchayath under
WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
2026:KER:1428
the Right to Information Act, 2005, which shows the Petroleum
Retail Outlet of the Respondent No.1 has not submitted any
Application for License for the year 2025-26. Respondent No.1
has not filed Counter Affidavit disputing the averments in the
Writ Petition.
9. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
Respondent No.1 is that only if there is refusal from the
Respondent No.4, statutory authority, the Petitioners can seek
a Writ of Mandamus against the Respondent No.4 and at any
rate, the Petitioners can seek direction to consider Ext.P7 by the
Respondent No.4. Of course, it is well settled that this Court can
issue a Writ of Mandamus only if the Petitioners have made their
demand and the Respondent Authority has refused the said
demand. The Petitioners have made their Demand as per
Ext.P7 dated 16.09.2025 to the Respondent No.4. The
Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition on 22.10.2025. The
WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
2026:KER:1428
Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition since the Petitioners did
not receive any Reply from the Respondent No.4 on Ext.P7. The
Petitioners have waited for a reasonable period of one month
after the submission of the Ext.P7 Petition. When the Authority
does not respond to the demand of the Petitioners within a
reasonable time, it is well within the right of the Petitioners to
seek a Writ of Mandamus against such Authority, treating that
the Authority has refused the demand of the Petitioners.
10. License for storing petroleum in tanks for a Petroleum Retail
Outlet is issued by the Respondent No.3 in Form XIV under
Section 141 read with Article 5 of the First Schedule of the
Petroleum Rules, 2002. Rule 152 of the Petroleum Rules
provides that every license granted under the said Rules shall
stand cancelled if the licensee ceases to have any right to the
site for storing petroleum. On expiry of the Ext.P1 Lease Deed,
the Respondent No.1 ceases to have the right to the site for
WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
2026:KER:1428
storing petroleum. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel
for the Respondent No.1 is that, as per the Proviso to Rule
152(1), the holder of a license is entitled to an opportunity of
being heard before cancelling the license. I am unable to accept
the said contention. The said Proviso is applicable only in the
case of suspension or cancellation of license under Clause (iii)
of Rule 152(1) by 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. When the
licensee ceases to have any right to the site for storing
petroleum, the license stands cancelled automatically without
any formal order for the same by the Licensing Authority in view
of Clause (iii) of Rule 152(1). Hence, the question of following a
procedure for cancellation or granting an opportunity of hearing
to the Respondent No.1 does not arise.
WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
2026:KER:1428
11. In C. Albert Morris (supra), the Landlord approached the High
Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing that the license of
the tenant to carry on the petrol bunk shall not be renewed, as
the tenant has lost his right to the site on expiry of the Lease
Deed. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition,
holding that a "right" only meant a "legal right to continue in
occupation or possession without interruption" and that the
possession of the site did not entitle him to renewal and that the
tenant could be dispossessed only under the due process of
law. The Division Bench confirmed the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, holding that the Licensee is not a lawful tenant
and that the possession was not a legal possession and that the
earlier suit filed by the landlord would not in any manner prevent
him from seeking a writ remedy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
upheld the judgment of the High Court holding that a person can
be said to have a right to something when it is possible to find a
WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
2026:KER:1428
lawful origin for that right; that a wrong cannot be a right of a
person who trespasses on to another's land and a trespasser
cannot be said to have a right to the land vis-à-vis the owner
because he happens to be in possession of that land; that mere
presence on the land by itself does not result in a right to the
land; that such presence on the premises may ripen into a right
by reason of possession having become adverse to the true
owner by reason of the passage of time and possession being
open, uninterrupted, continuous and in one's own right; that any
right which the dealer has over his site was the right which he
had acquired in terms of the lease; that when that lease expired
and when the landlord declined to renew the same and also
called upon the erstwhile tenant to surrender possession, the
erstwhile lessee could no longer assert that he had any right to
the site and that his continued occupation of something which
he had no right to occupy cannot be regarded as source of a
WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
2026:KER:1428
right to the land of which he himself was not in lawful
possession.
12. In view of the decision in C. Albert Morris (supra), the Petitioners
are entitled to get their second prayer seeking a Writ of
Mandamus to the Respondent No.4 to cancel the Explosive
License issued in favour of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 for
conducting a Petroleum Retail Outlet in the leased premises.
13.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed in part, issuing a Writ of
Mandamus to the Respondent No.4 to cancel the Explosive
License issued in favour of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 for
conducting the Petroleum Retail Outlet in the leased premises
covered by the Ext.P1 Lease Deed.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
Shg/
WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
2026:KER:1428
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 39399 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LEASE DEED
NO.336/2004 DATED 21.01.2004 EXECUTED BY THE
PETITIONERS WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR CONDUCTING
PETROLEUM OUTLET OF INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2009 IN
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2024
IN W.P.[C] NO. 3063/2024 AND W.P.[C] NO. 2720/2024
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.08.2025 IN
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.9.2025 GIVEN
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT TO SRI. SUBAIR,
WHICH WAS OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONERS
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.08.2025 IN
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS DATED 16.9.2025 BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Copy of Power of
COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
Attorney
