Smt Punjala Geetha Lakshmi vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
2025 Latest Caselaw 331 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt Punjala Geetha Lakshmi vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 11 July, 2025

          * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
         + Writ Petition Nos.16735 and 29399 of 2023
%     11.07.2025

#     Between:

P.Geetha Lakshmi and others
                                                Petitioners in both WPs
                                 Vs.

M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Having registered office at 11-5-249/1,
Bhavani Nagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad,
Telangana - 500 018.
                                              Respondents in both WPs


! Counsel for Petitioner            : Mr.A.Venkatesh, Sr.Counsel
                                      (in both the WPs)

^ Counsel for Respondents              : Mr.Dominic Fernandes
                                         Standing counsel in both WPs


<GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred
1      (2021) 13 SCC 121
2      MANU/GJ/1266/2021
3      (2004) 3 SCC 553
4      MANU/SC/0268/1999
5      (2020) 19 SCC 241
6      MANU/SC/0293/2021
7      (2011) 5 SCC 697
8      2006) 1 SCC 228
9      (1999) 4 SCC 450
10     (2004) 8 SCC 335
11     (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1682
                                   2



  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

          Writ Petition Nos.16735 and 29399 of 2023

ORDER:

Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are one

and the same, both the writ petitions are disposed of by way of

this common order.

2. Writ Petition No.16375 of 2023 is filed praying to

issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to

vacate the Schedule Property belonging to the petitioners herein

i.e., the land admeasuring 1501 Sq. yards forming part of total

extent of 37.5 gts., of land in Survey No.20, Nagarjuna Sagar,

Hyderabad road, Lingojiguda, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy

District, Telangana.

3. Writ Petition No.29399 of 2023 is filed questioning the

inaction of Respondent No.2 in cancelling the license granted to

the Respondent No.1 vide No.P/SC/TG/4/2624(P21180) in

pursuance to show cause notice dated 10.07.2023 with a

consequential direction to respondent No.2 to cancel the license

granted to respondent No.1 vide

No.13/SC/TG/14/2624(P21180) in pursuance to show cause

notice dated 10.07.2023 as per Rule 152(1)(i) of Petroleum Rules,

2002.

4. The brief facts in W.P.No.16735 of 2023 are that

petitioners claims to be owners of the land admeasuring 1501

sq.yds., forming part of total extent of 37.5 gts., of land in

Sy.No.20, Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Lingojiguda, Saroornagar,

Ranga Reddy District, Telangana (subject property) having taken

on lease for 30 years from one Mr.M.Kishan Rao vide registered

lease deed bearing Doc.No.3 of 2003 dated 31.12.2002 registered

at the Sub-Registrar, Saroornagar. That as per the registered

Will Deed of Sri M. Kishan Rao, vide Document

No.160/111/2018 registered at the Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally,

the said property stood transferred to the name of the petitioners

herein after the death of said M.Kishan Rao.

5. Respondent No.1 is a company dealing with the business

of petroleum products and were looking to set up it MS and HSD

retail outlets at Lingojiguda village, Saroornagar Mandal and

approached the Petitioner with an offer to obtain the subject

property on lease. Accordingly, the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 jointly

executed a lease dead in favour of M/s.Indian Corporation Ltd.

(i.e., the 1st Respondent herein) vide registered lease deed

No.2756/2003 dated 18.06.2003 registered at Sub-Registrar,

Saroornagar. As per the lease deed, the lease period was for 15

years to commence from 27.05.2003 with monthly lease rent of

Rs.19,993/- with 10% increase after every 5 years and as per

clause 12 of the lease deed, if the 1st respondent was desirous of

renewing the lease deed, they were to give a notice not less than

3 months prior to the expiration of the lease deed and upon

receiving such notice, the petitioners may renew lease of the said

premises on mutual terms. Admittedly, the said lease deed had

expired on 17.06.2018 and there was no communication from

the respondent authorities for the renewal of the lease.

6. It is further submitted that after expiration of the lease

deed dated 18.06.2003, the petitioner informed the respondent

No.1 of the same and held discussions for revision of the lease

amounts with extension for a further period of 15 years. Though

Respondent No.1 agreed for monthly rental of Rs.3,30,000 with

escalation of 10% every 3 years and further lease period of 15

years, the same was not reverted and no new lease deed was

executed. As such the Petitioners herein issued letter dated

01.06.2021 requesting respondent No.1 to vacate the subject

property within one month from date of receipt of the said notice

and to pay the differential new rent from the date of previous

lease expiry. Despite, the Petitioners' repeated requests, neither

there was any response from the respondent No.1 as to the

extension of the lease nor the premises was vacated and no rents

have been received since then.

7. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 applied for

renewal of the explosives license which is mandatory for the

purchase/sale/storage of petrol and other related products by

making online application to Respondent No.2 i.e., Petroleum

and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO). It is further

submitted that a duty is cast upon respondent No.2 to check if

there is an existing lease agreement for the entire period of the

license to be granted. However, respondent No.2, without

checking the same had renewed the license after the expiry of

the lease vide No.P/SC/TG/14/2624(P21180) dated 05.12.2020

up to 31.12.2025.

8. Thereafter, the Petitioners even tried approaching the

Respondent No. 2 for the cancellation of licence, but in vain.

Despite requesting time and again, the respondent No.1 has

been operating the retail outlet without valid lease and is not

vacating the subject property even after 5 years of expiration of

the lease deed. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is

filed.

9. The brief facts in W.P.No.29399 of 2023: In addition to

the facts stated in W.P.No.16735 of 2023, it is submitted that

the petitioner had approached respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e.,

Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) and

District Collector and Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District

requesting cancellation of explosive license

No.P/SC/TG/14/2624(P21180) vide Letters dated 18.05.2023.

Responding to the same, respondent No.3 issued letter bearing

Lr.No.A3/164/2023 dated 03.07.2023 to the State Level

Coordinator (HPCL), Secunderabad to take necessary action

against respondent No.1 as per law. Thereafter, respondent No.2

issued show cause notice to respondent No.1 on 10.07.2023

seeking an explanation as to why the subject license should not

be suspended or cancelled as per Rule 152(1)(i) of Petroleum

Rules, 2002. Since, respondent No.1 is not vacating the schedule

property even after 5 years of the expiration of the lease deed,

the petitioners have filed W.P.No.16735 of 2023. The said writ

petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated

03.10.2023 on the ground of disputed questions of fact, against

which, writ appeal in W.A.No.1004 of 2023 has been filed. The

Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 18.07.2024

observed that the issue with regard to the steps taken by the

parties with regard to the renewal of lease is required to be

adjudicated. Therefore, the order dated 03.10.2023 in

W.P.No.16735 of 2023 was set aside and the matter is remitted

for decision afresh in accordance with law. As such the

W.P.No.16735 of 2023 is restored for adjudication afresh. It is

further submitted that though respondent No.2 issued show

cause notice dated 10.07.2023 to respondent No.1, no further

steps were taken. Questioning the said inaction of respondent

No.2, the present writ petition is filed.

Counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1 in

W.P.No.16735 of 2023:

10. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1

stating that respondent No.1/Corporation is a Government of

India Enterprise functioning under administrative control of

Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The

petroleum products are essential commodities under the

Essential Commodities Act. The respondent No.1/Corporation

deals with essential commodities of petroleum products to sub

serve common interest of public at large and accordingly have

appointed retail outlet dealers to supply essential commodities of

petroleum and diesel throughout the Country with largest

network of petroleum and diesel distribution. It is submitted that

on 29.05.2018, an offer was received from the petitioners for

renewal of lease for a period of 15 years and that vide

"Declaratory Affidavit" dated 18.12.2018, the petitioner No.1

declared that she has been continuing in the peaceful possession

of the subject land which was leased to her and her children by

Mr.M.Kishan Rao for a period of 30 years vide registered lease

deed bearing Doc.No.3 of 2003 dated 31.12.2002. However, it is

stated that respondent No.1/Corporation is unaware of the Will

deed executed by M.Kishan Rao executed vide

Doc.No.160/111/2018.

11. It is further submitted that respondent

No.1/Corporation vide letter dated 19.12.2017 requested the

landlord for extension of lease deed as per clause 12 of the lease

agreement after the expiry of the lease on 26.05.2018. On

29.05.2018 an offer was received from the landowners for

renewal of lease period of 15 years and on 14.07.2021,

respondent No.1/Corporation informed about the approval from

the competent authority for going ahead with the lease and

accordingly requested the landowners to come forward for

signing the sub-lease agreement. Thereafter, again on

17.09.2021, respondent No.1/Corporation again requested

landowners to come forward to complete registration process.

12. It is further submitted that in pursuance to the offer

letter received by the land owner after the negotiations held on

29.05.2018, respondent No.1/Corporation applied for renewal of

license from the competent authority to continue to do business

and on 14.07.2021, the respondent No.1/Corporation informed

about the approval from the competent authority for going ahead

with the lease and requested the land owners to come forward to

sign the lease agreement.

Submissions of learned senior counsel for the

petitioner:

13. Mr.A.Venkatesh, learned senior counsel for the

petitioners in both the writ petitions would submit that

petitioners herein had offered to extend the lease vide letter

dated 29.05.2018 and Declaratory Affidavit dated 18.12.2018

and Declaratory Affidavit dated 17.04.2021, however there was

no response from respondent No.1/Corporation for more than 3

years. Thereafter, the petitioners revoked the proposal/offer vide

letter dated 01.06.2021 as the respondent No.1/Corporation did

not take any action within a period of limitation i.e., 3 years as

per Article 54 of Limitation Act. Since, respondent No.1 neither

vacated the premises nor took any steps for renewing the lease,

the petitioners filed Writ Petition W.P.No.16735 of 2023 on

19.06.2023 after two years. Thus, respondent No.1/Corporation

do not have any right over the petitioners property, and is just

squatting over the subject property. It is further submitted that

respondent No.1/Corporation said to have issued a letter dated

19.12.2017 calling upon the petitioners to come forward and

execute a fresh lease agreement. However, the said letter dated

19.12.2017 has never been sent to the petitioners and the same

has been disputed by the petitioners. The said aspect is evident

from the fact that there is no reference of the letter dated

19.12.2017 in the letter dated 14.07.2021 as well as 17.09.2021.

Even assuming that such letter dated 19.12.2017 has been

addressed, still respondent No.1/Corporation did not take any

steps pursuant to such letter for renewal of lease, inspite of

repeated requests and continuous follow-up vide letter dated

29.05.2018 and declaratory affidavits dated 18.12.2018 and

17.04.2021.

14. Learned senior counsel would further submit that the

writ petition is maintainable in the High Court for vacating

premises in question which is occupied by respondent

No.1/Corporation even after expiry of lease period and relegating

the petitioners to the alternative remedy is not sustainable.

15. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel

would rely on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

National Company v. Territory Manager 1 wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court directed the Oil Company to vacate and

handover peaceful and vacant possession of the premises to

appellant. The Oil Company was further directed to pay arrears

of rent from the date when lease came to an end and accordingly

allowed the said Civil Appeal.

15.1. Learned senior counsel would further rely on

judgment of High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Maruti

(2021) 13 SCC 121

Enterprise v. State of Gujarat 2 wherein the Division Bench of

High Court of Gujarat held that asking the lessor to go and file a

civil suit would be nothing short of mockery of justice and in

such circumstances, the writ Court would be justified in

directing the State or the instrumentality of the State to

immediately vacate the premises and handover the possession to

the lessor, and may even award compensation in terms of money

towards damages.

15.2. On the aspect of disputed questions of fact, learned

senior counsel would rely on judgment of the Hon'ble supreme

Court in the case of ABL International Ltd., v. Export Credit

Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., 3 wherein it is held that

writ Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving

disputes questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for

entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of

contractual obligations and/or involves some disputed questions

of fact.

15.3. Learned senior counsel would also place reliance on a

judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum

MANU/GJ/1266/2021

(2004) 3 SCC 553

Corporation Ltd., v. Dolly Das 4 and Papatrao Vyankatrao

Patil v. State of Maharashtra and others 5 wherein it is held

that High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226

of Constitution of India, even if the facts pleaded before the

Court are of such nature which do not involve any complicated

question of facts needing elaborate investigation.

15.4. Learned senior counsel, with regard to alternative

remedy and disputed questions of fact, would rely on Radha

Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh 6 wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an alternate remedy by

itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article

226 of Constitution of India in an appropriate case though

ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an

efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. In cases where

there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decline

jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is

objectively of the view that the nature of controversy requires the

exercise of its jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be

interfered with.

MANU/SC/0268/1999

(2020) 19 SCC 241

MANU/SC/0293/2021

15.5. Learned senior counsel would rely on Union of India

v. Tantia Construction Private Limited 7 wherein Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India held that alternative remedy is not a bar

to the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the

Supreme Court and that without exhausting such alternative

remedy, a writ petition would not be maintainable. The

constitutional powers vested in the High Court or the Supreme

Court cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available.

Submission of learned standing counsel for respondent

No.1/Corporation:

16. Per contra, Mr.Dominic Fernandes, learned standing

counsel for respondent No.1/Corporation would submit that

respondent No.1/Corporation issued a letter dated 19.12.2017

(prior to expiry of the lease) seeking extension of the lease, which

is a crucial disputed question of fact which normally a writ Court

would not enter into or decide, as such the writ is liable to be

dismissed on this ground also. It is further contended that

during the negotiations held on 29.05.2018 at the respondent

No.1/Corporation Office, the petitioners agreed to lease the

property to IOCL inter-alia seeking monthly lease rental of

(2011) 5 SCC 697

Rs.3,30,000/- and the last paid rent was Rs.23,496/-. Therefore,

there was a substantial increase in the lease rentals sought by

the petitioners which requires multiple approvals.

17. Learned Standing counsel submits that judgments

relied on by the petitioners falls on different footing and do not

apply in the present case and submits that the appropriate

remedy for the petitioners is only to approach Civil Court for

seeking alternative remedy and eventually pray this Court to

dismiss the present writ petition.

18. Learned standing counsel, in support of his

contentions would rely on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in C.Albert Morris v. K.Chandrasekaran 8 and another

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation ltd., v. Dolly Das 9.

18.1. Learned standing counsel would also rely on Escorts

ltd., v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi 10 and on

Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer 11.

(2006) 1 SCC 228

(1999) 4 SCC 450

(2004) 8 SCC 335

(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1682

Learned Standing counsel would further rely on a judgment of

this Court in W.P.Nos.25779 and 18813 of 2024 dated

13.11.2024, whereby, the Division Bench of this Court allowed

the said writ petitions and held in favour of the petitioner on the

aspect of maintainability.

Observations and Analysis:

19. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have already

issued eviction notice on 01.06.2021 however, prior to that

agreed to extend the sub-lease to respondent No.1/Corporation

for a further period of 15 years and held negotiations at the office

of respondent No.1/Corporation and finalized monthly rent of

Rs.3,30,000/- with escalation of 10% every 3 years. Despite

repeated requests and continuous follow up there was no

response from respondent No.1/Corporation to extend the lease

and therefore, the eviction notice was issued to vacate the site

within one month from the issuance of said notice and also

requested to pay the differential rent from the date of previous

lease expiry. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.16735 of

2023, there is no averment with regard to eviction notice dated

01.06.2021. The respondent authorities have not submitted

what steps they have taken subsequent to the issuance of

eviction letter dated 01.06.2021. In the writ affidavit in

W.P.No.16735 of 2023 at paragraph No.7, it is stated that the

petitioner has issued eviction notice dated 01.06.2021, however,

respondent No.1/Corporation has not made any averments

subsequent to the issuance of the eviction notice. It is also

pertinent to note that respondent No.1/Corporation has no

subsisting valid lease as such has no right for storing petroleum

products as on the date of issuance of renewal license which is

in contravention to Rule 152(1)(i) of Petroleum Rules, 2002. Rule

152 of Petroleum Rules is extracted hereunder for reference:

"152. Suspension and cancellation of license (1) Every license granted under these rules shall-

(i) stand cancelled, if the licensee ceases to have any right to the site for storing petroleum;

(ii) stand cancelled, if the no objection certificate is cancelled by the District Authority or the State Government in accordance with sub-rule (1) of rule 150;

(iii) be liable to be suspended or cancelled by an order of 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:

Provided that-

(a) before suspending or cancelling a license under this rule, the holder of the license shall be given an opportunity of being heard;

(b) the maximum period of suspension shall not exceed three months; and

(c) the suspension of a license shall not debar the holder of the license from applying for its renewal in accordance with the provisions of rule 148."

20. The Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the

writ appeal in W.A.No.1004 of 2023, preferred against the order

dated 03.10.2023 passed in W.P.No.16735 of 2023 which has

been dismissed on the ground of disputed questions of fact, with

the following observations at paragraph No.12, which is

extracted hereunder for reference:

"12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue with regard to the steps taken by the parties with regard to the renewal of lease is also required to be adjudicated. Therefore, the order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for decision afresh in accordance with law. Needless to state that the learned Single Judge shall also take into account the affidavit as well as the reply filed on behalf of the parties before deciding the Writ Petition. It is

made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case."

By virtue of the order passed by the Division Bench, this

writ petition is restored on file for fresh adjudication in

accordance to law.

21. Admittedly, there is no renewal of the agreement dated

27.05.2003 which is valid upto 27.05.2018. That apart

petitioners have come up with an offer upon which the

respondent No.1/Corporation has not taken any steps except

stating that the said offer requires multiple approvals. In the

absence of the same respondent No.1/Corporation do not have

any right to continue until a new renewed lease agreement is

entered into between the petitioners and respondent No.1.

Quietly continuing to squat on the petitioners' land without a

right or a license would be equivalent to an act which is both

overt and lacking in probity and the same would cause monetary

loss to the petitioners. Therefore, respondent No.1/Corporation

cannot have any conceivable reason to continue staying on in

the said premises with or without using the same retail outlet.

This Court in W.P.Nos.25779 and 18813 of 2024 by common

order dated 13.11.2024 allowed the writ petition directing the

respondents to vacate the subject premises. The relevant

paragraph is extracted herein for reference:

"20. In National Company v. Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, the Supreme Court considered a similar issue i.e., whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be maintainable for vacating the premises in question occupied by Oil Companies even after expiry of the lease period. The Supreme Court held that the conduct of the respondent No.1 - BPCL in continuing to be in occupation of the premises after expiry of lease was unbecoming of a statutory corporation which is a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The view of this Court with regard to continued occupation of the respondents by unlawful means is reinforced by the suspension of license of the respondents' Petrol Bunks by the PESO on 30.09.2024. Therefore, the respondents cannot have any conceivable reason for staying on in the said premises with or without using the same as a retail outlet. The fact that the respondents have discontinued using the land as a retail outlet does not clothe the occupation with legality.

22. In view of the aforesaid observations and judicial

pronouncements, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct

respondent No.1/Corporation to vacate the subject premises and

handover the possession to the petitioners within a period of

three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

and also make payment of the rent for the period after

27.05.2018, if not paid. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.16735 of

2023 is allowed.

23. With regard to the cancellation of license of respondent

No.1/Corporation, admittedly, the lease deed expired on

17.06.2018, however, respondent No.2 renewed the license of

respondent No.1/Corporation on 05.12.2020 without verifying

whether any subsisting lease exists (between the petitioner and

respondent No.1) as on the date of issuance of license. As such

the renewal of license dated 05.12.2020 issued in favour of

respondent No.1 is in contravention to Rule 152(1)(i) of

Petroleum Rules, 2002 (supra). Accordingly, the said license is

not sustainable in the eye of law. Respondent No.2 shall take

appropriate and immediate steps to cancel the said license.

Accordingly, Writ Petition No.29399 of 2023 stands allowed.

24. Accordingly both the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.16735

and 29399 of 2023 are allowed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________________ JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 11.07.2025 Note: LR Copy to be marked.

mrm