Orissa High Court
Smt. Rajani Devi Banka And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 22 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1044 of 2004
Smt. Rajani Devi Banka and another .... Petitioners
Mr. M. C. Jena, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Aditya N. Das, Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE R. K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
22.02.2022
Order No.
16. 1. The prayer in this present writ petition is for declaring illegal the
continuation of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL)
in the premises of the Petitioners pursuant to a lease, which
according to the Petitioners was being renewed in purported
exercise of the powers under Sections 5 and 7 of the "Caltex
(Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited and
of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited) Act (17 of
1977)". The consequential prayer is for eviction of HPCL from the
premises.
2. Although the petition has been pending in this Court for about
eighteen years and notice was issued way back in 2005 itself, till
date no counter affidavit has been filed by the HPCL.
3. At the outset, Mr. Aditya N. Das, learned counsel appearing for
HPCL drew attention of the Court to the Repealing and Amending
Act, 2016 passed by the Parliament on 6th May, 2016, whereby
among the several enactments that has stood repealed is the
aforementioned Enactment of 1977. The contention of Mr. Das
therefore was that the only remedy available to the Petitioners was
to go in for a suit for eviction.
3. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioners, on the other hand,
relied on the judgment in Smt. Dolly Das v. Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. AIR 1994 Ori 103 modified by the Supreme
Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dolly Das
(1999) 4 SCC 450, and the recent Judgment dated 11th November,
2021 of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6726 of
2021 (National Company v. The Territory Manager, BPCL) and
submitted that the directions similar to those issued by the Supreme
Court in the aforementioned cases should be issued by this Court.
4. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioners drew attention of the
Court to a letter dated 30th June, 1983 where exercising its powers
under the 1977 Act, HPCL stated that the lease would be renewed
for a period of 20 years commencing from 1st November, 1993.
5. That period obviously came to an end on 31st October, 2013.
Nothing has been placed on record to indicate that HPCL exercised
its right to continue the lease beyond the aforementioned date. At
this stage, Mr. Das stated that he would need to take instructions
whether any such correspondence exists in that regard.
6. The repeal of the 1977 Act would mean that HPCL can no longer
exercise its right thereunder to renew the lease. If it has not
exercised any such right after 31st October 2013, then even on its
own showing, it cannot continue in the premises.
7. On the question whether HPCL has been paying market rent as
was directed by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases,
Mr. Das said he would have to take instructions.
8. To enable Mr. Das to take instructions on both the aspects, list on
14th March, 2022.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(R. K. Pattanaik)
Judge
S. Behera
