[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Smt Andela Vijaya Laxmi vs Union Of India on 7 April, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 5425 OF 2026
07.04.2026
Between:
Smt. Andela Vijaya Laxmi & others
..... Petitioners
And
Union of India,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry,
Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO),
Rep. by its Secretary,
Delhi & others.
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
Petitioners are the owners of premises bearing
Municipal No.1-2-288/13/1 Ganagamahal, Domalguda,
Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the scheduled premises).
The said premises was originally leased out in favour of Smt.
Kavita Oberoi in 1973 for running a gas godown under the
name and style of Amar Gas Services; rent was enhanced from
time to time and the present monthly rent payable is
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh). After expiry of the original
lease, the arrangement between Petitioners and Respondent
No.4 continued as a month-to-month tenancy in the absence of
any stamped or registered lease document, in accordance with
the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Petitioners
assert that Respondent No.4, which is presently a partnership
firm consisting of Kavita Oberoi, Narayana Raju and Krishna
Markurthi, continued in occupation of the premises, and that
Kavita Oberoi expired on 21.01.2025.
1.1. It is stated, in the absence of any stamped or
registered lease document, the occupation of Respondent No.4
can only be construed as permissible possession or a month-to-
month tenancy in terms of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
The relationship between Petitioners and Respondent No.4 dates
back to 1973, and after the expiry of the original lease, the
arrangement continued only as an oral month-to-month
tenancy, and the status of Respondent No.4 changed from a
proprietary concern to a partnership firm consisting of Kavita
Oberoi, Narayana Raju and Krishna Markurthi. It is stated
further, Petitioners decided not to continue the tenancy and
accordingly, issued a quit notice dated 29.05.2025 under
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, terminating
the month-to-month tenancy by giving thirty days clear notice
and calling upon Respondent No.4 to surrender possession of
the premises. The said quit notice was also brought to the
notice of Respondents 2 and 3 and Respondent No.4 issued
reply dated 16.06.2025, which did not address the termination
of tenancy and dealt only with extraneous issues.
1.2. Respondent No.4, on baseless allegations of threats,
instituted O.S.No. 758 of 2025 on 01.07.2025 before the Court
of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking an
order restraining Petitioners from dispossessing it from the
scheduled premises otherwise than by due process of law, and
also filed I.A.No.279. of 2025 seeking interim injunction.
Petitioners filed counter and written statement in the said suit
denying the allegations that they intended to evict Respondent
No.4 contrary to law. The Civil Court, by order dated 24.11.2025
granted injunction restraining dispossession of Respondent
No.4 except by due process of law, while specifically clarifying
that Petitioners are not precluded from evicting Respondent
No.4 in accordance with law. Petitioners did not challenge the
said order as they never intended to evict Respondent No.4
otherwise than in accordance with law.
1.3. It is stated, the storage and supply of LPG cylinders
are governed by the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and
the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2016, and gas cylinders fall within the
definition of 'explosives' under the Act, and the Rules framed
thereunder prescribe the procedure for grant and renewal of
licence. Under the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2016, an Application for
grant or renewal of licence is required to be made in Form C,
which mandates documentary proof of "legal and physical
possession" of the premises, including ownership proof as
contemplated under Rule 49(2)(5), and other relevant provisions
including Rules 44 and 53. A combined reading of the 1884 Act,
the 2016 Rules and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 makes it
clear that a person must have lawful possession of the premises
to be eligible for grant or renewal of licence, and a person in
occupation without consent of the owner is a trespasser and
cannot be said to be in legal possession.
1.4. Upon termination of tenancy with effect from
01.07.2025, Respondent No.4 ceased to have any valid or
subsisting lease and is in unlawful occupation of the premises
and therefore does not satisfy the requirement of legal and
physical possession under the Rules. It is stated, the injunction
granted in O.S.No.758 of 2025 relates only to protection against
dispossession and does not confer any right upon Respondent
No.4 to claim legal possession for the purpose of grant or
renewal of licence under the statutory regime. Petitioners
addressed representations dated 29.05.2025, 19.06.2025 and
28.11.2025 to Respondents 2 and 3 informing them about
termination of tenancy and specifically requesting them not to
renew the licence in favour of Respondent No.4 in the absence
of a valid lease.
1.5. Respondents 2 and 3 initially issued proceedings
dated 03.06.2025 calling upon Respondent No.4 to furnish
details regarding lease, and thereafter, issued communication
dated 10.07.2025 calling upon Petitioners to submit ownership
documents and undertaking, which the Petitioners complied
with by submitting documents on 28.07.2025. Calling upon
Petitioners to furnish ownership documents was beyond the
scope of powers of Respondents 2 and 3 and is unjustified,
especially when ownership was never in dispute and such
documents were never sought earlier. Respondents 2 and 3
thereafter, issued show cause notice dated 16.10.2025 to
Respondent No.4 directing it to submit clarification and
documents evidencing legal possession or any stay order from a
competent court, and also provided an opportunity of personal
hearing.
1.6. Petitioners also are stated to have submitted
representation dated 28.11.2025 reiterating the legal position
and requesting appropriate action. Despite the above,
Respondents 2 and 3 failed to consider the representations
dated 29.05.2025, 19.06.2025 and 28.11.2025 and failed to
take action in accordance with the statutory provisions. By the
impugned proceedings dated 05.02.2026, they have kept further
action in abeyance on the ground of the injunction granted in
I.A.No.279 of 2025 in O.S.No.758 of 2025, which is wholly
extraneous to the statutory scheme governing grant or renewal
of licence.
1.7. The reliance placed by Respondents 2 and 3 on the
injunction order is misplaced, as the said injunction is not
binding on the licensing authority and does not govern the
statutory requirement of legal possession under the Gas
Cylinders Rules, 2016. Respondents 2 and 3 failed to discharge
their statutory duty under the 1884 Act and the 2016 Rules and
have abdicated their functions by not conducting proper enquiry
into the existence of a valid lease. Rule 57 of the Rules
mandates that no person shall store gas cylinders without a
valid licence, and such licence or renewal must be supported by
valid permission from the owner or a subsisting lease. That in
the absence of consent of the owner or a valid lease, no licence
can be granted or renewed, and any such continuation is
contrary to the statutory framework and amounts to abuse of
statutory powers.
1.8. It is stated, the action of Respondents 2 and 3 in
treating the licence as continuing or in not refusing renewal,
despite absence of legal possession, is arbitrary, illegal and
contrary to the provisions of the 1884 Act and the 2016 Rules.
The impugned proceedings dated 05.02.2026 are based on
considerations alien to the statutory scheme and are liable to be
quashed as being contrary to law.
2. Respondent No. 4 filed counter contending that
they are authorized distributor for supply of Liquefied Petroleum
Gas (LPG) cylinders for Indian Oil Corporation and is holding
licence bearing No. G/SC/TG/06/770 (G5722), and has been
carrying on its business as an LPG distributor in the premises
bearing No.1-2-288/13/1, Gaganmahal, Domalguda,
Hyderabad. The said premises was originally taken on lease
from the original lessor Sri Andella Sathaiah, and during his
lifetime, Respondent No.4 was regularly paying rent as
enhanced from time to time, and at present the monthly rent
payable at Rs.1,00,000/-. The original lessor Sri Andella
Sathaiah expired on 16.08.2016, and thereafter his eldest son,
who is the 2nd Petitioner continued to receive rents from
Respondent No.4.
2.1. While so, Petitioners, being family members of the
deceased original lessor, suddenly issued a quit notice dated
29.05.2025 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882, seeking to terminate the tenancy. Petitioners also gave a
complaint to the Petroleum and Safety Organization. When
Petitioners attempted to unlawfully take possession of the
leased premises, Respondent No.4 was constrained to file
O.S.No.758 of 2025 before the Court of V Senior Civil Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking a decree of perpetual
injunction restraining Petitioners from interfering with its
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
premises.
2.2. Respondent No.4 also filed I.A.No.279 of 2025 in
O.S.No.758 of 2025 seeking temporary injunction, and by order
dated 24.11.2025, the Court granted injunction restraining the
Petitioners from dispossessing Respondent No.4 and from
interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
premises till disposal of the suit, while observing that the
Petitioners are at liberty to evict Respondent No.4 by due
process of law.
2.3. Respondent No.4, apprehending termination of
licence or refusal of renewal, filed Writ Petition No.29714 of
2025 seeking continuation of its business as an authorized
distributor, and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on
26.09.2025 directing the authorities to provide an opportunity
of hearing. Respondent No.4 appeared before the department
concerned and informed the authorities about the interim
injunction granted in the suit. It is stated, the impugned
proceedings dated 05.02.2026 issued by Respondents 2 and 3
cannot be termed as illegal, as the authorities have merely acted
in compliance with and in obedience to the order of injunction
granted by the competent civil Court.
2.4. It is stated, the respondent authorities have only
intimated that further action in the subject matter cannot be
taken so long as the interim injunction granted in I.A. No. 279
of 2025 in O.S.No. 758 of 2025 subsists. The action of
Respondents 2 and 3 in keeping the matter in abeyance is
justified in view of the subsisting injunction order passed by the
competent civil Court.
3. Respondents 2 and 3 gave their written instructions
stating that licence to store compressed gas in cylinders was
originally granted to M/s Amar Gas Service by the Office of the
Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle, Chennai on
17.08.1984 vide Licence No. G/SC/TG/06/770 (GS722) for
storage of 8000 kilograms of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)
filled in cylinders. On receipt of a complaint from Sri C.V.
Suryanarayana and Sri K. Mahesh, Advocates, claiming that
their clients, namely Smt. Andela Vijayalaxmi, Sri Andela Raja
Shekar, Smt. Nandyal Madhuri and Smt. Andela Manjula, are
the owners of the land on which LPG godown is situated, these
Respondents issued letter dated 03.06.2026 to Respondent No.4
calling upon it to inform the status of the lease agreement so as
to enable them take further action.
3.1. Thereafter, Respondents 2 and 3 are stated to have
issued show cause notice dated 16.10.2026 to Respondent No.4
in reference to the compliance submitted vide letter dated
19.09.2025, calling upon them to inform the status of the
injunction suit. It is stated, Respondents 2 and 3 were also
respondents in Writ Petition No. 29714 of 2025 filed by M/s
Amar Gas Service, and pursuant to the directions issued by
order dated 26.09.2025, letter dated 18.11.2025 was issued to
M/s Amar Gas Services directing them to appear before the
office on 04.12.2025 and produce documents in support of legal
and lawful possession of the land. Respondent No.4 appeared
before the office and submitted the order dated 24.11.2025
passed by the civil Court in O.S.No.758 of 2025, wherein
defendants were restrained from dispossessing plaintiff from the
petition schedule property and from interfering with its peaceful
use and enjoyment till disposal of the suit.
3.2. In view of the said order dated 24.11.2025,
Respondents 2 and 3 issued letter dated 09.12.2025 to M/s
Amar Gas Services in accordance with the provisions of the
2016 Rules, taking note of the renewal application submitted on
line on 11.09.2025. By the said communication dated
09.12.2025, Respondents 2 and 3 informed M/s Amar Cias
Services that, as the renewal Application has been submitted,
the subject licence is deemed to be in force as per Rule 55(5) of
the 2016 Rules and that the licensee may continue operating
the LPG godown till refusal of renewal, or till any relevant court
order, or till the period applied for i.e., 30.09.2030, or till any
further communication, whichever is earlier.
3.3. Respondent No.4 was also directed to submit
within 30 days the distributorship agreement with Indian Oil
Corporation Limited, a valid and current partnership deed, a
third party risk analysis report of the LPG godown duly vetted
by Indian Oil Corporation Limited, and documents confirming
legal possession of the site. It was specifically informed that
having valid legal and physical possession of the site is a
prerequisite for grant or renewal of licence under the 2016
Rules. Respondent No.4 submitted a copy of the order dated
24.11.2025 in O.S.No.758 of 2025 in support of its claim of
legal and physical possession. Thereafter, Respondents 2 and 3
issued letter dated 05.02.2026 to petitioner No.2 referring to the
said order dated 24.11.2025 and stating that further action in
the subject matter cannot be taken till the said order subsists
and is not vacated by a competent court of law.
3.4. Subsequently, M/s. Amar Gas Service submitted
compliance to the letter dated 09.12.2025 vide its letter dated
10.03.2026. On receipt of such compliance, Respondents 2 and
3 issued proceedings dated 12.03.2026, referring to the renewal
Application dated 11.09.2025 and the documents submitted. In
view of the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Court of the V
Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.279 of
2025 in O.S.No.758 of 2025, Respondents 2 and 3 treated the
licence as deemed to be valid in terms of Rule 55(5) of the 2016
Rules till 30.09.2030 or until any further orders of the
competent court, whichever is earlier.
3.5. Respondents 2 and 3 assert that all actions taken
by them are in accordance with the provisions of the 2016 Rules
and in compliance with the orders passed by the competent civil
court.
4. Petitioners filed a rejoinder contending that counter
filed by Respondent No.4 contains omnibus and general denials
which do not merit any specific response and present Writ
Petition has been filed challenging the failure of the statutory
authorities to discharge their statutory functions under the
1884 Act and the 2016 Rules, which failure enures to the
benefit of Respondent No.4. The averments made by Respondent
No.4 merely reiterate the facts already set out in the writ
petition and therefore do not call for any further reply.
4.1. The statements made by Respondent No.4 insofar
as they relate to tenancy are already part of the pleadings in the
civil suit, and any inconsistency between such pleadings and
the stand taken in the counter affidavit would indicate that the
same are afterthoughts and do not require to be traversed. It is
stated, it is an admitted position that a quit notice dated
29.05.2025 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 was issued terminating the tenancy, and Petitioners had
also informed Respondents 2 and 3 that there is no subsisting
lease and that Respondent No.4 is not in legal possession of the
premises. The allegation that Petitioners attempted to
unlawfully take possession of the leased premises is false and
incorrect, and that the suit filed by Respondent No.4 was only
with a view to prevent them from taking action in accordance
with law.
4.2. Petitioners did not challenge the injunction order
dated 24.11.2025 as they never intended to evict Respondent
No.4 otherwise than by due process of law. It is true that
Respondent No.4 filed Writ Petition No. 29714 of 2025 and the
same was disposed of at the admission stage directing the
statutory authorities to extend an opportunity of hearing to
Respondent No.4. The contention that the impugned
proceedings cannot be termed as illegal is liable to be rejected,
and that the reliance placed on Rule 55(5) of the Rules is wholly
misconceived. Rule 55(5) only contemplates continuance
pending renewal and cannot be used to justify endless or
continuous deemed renewal in respect of premises where there
is no valid or subsisting lease.
4.3. The earlier licence expired in September 2025 and
continuation thereafter, for about five months without lawful
possession is contrary to law and amounts to abuse of the
provisions of Rule 55(5) of the 2016 Rules. It is also stated, the
licensing authority is bound in law to reject the Application for
renewal of licence on the ground that Respondent No.4 is not in
legal possession of the premises, and the continued occupation
of Respondent No.4 after termination of tenancy is that of a
trespasser. The impugned proceedings dated 05.02.2026 are
illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the 1884 Act
and the 2016 Rules and are liable to be quashed.
5. Heard Sri L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri C.V. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for
petitioners, Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor
General on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3 and Smt. P. Bhavana
Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.4.
6. The facts are not in serious dispute. Petitioners are
the owners of the scheduled premises which was originally
leased in favour of Smt. Kavita Oberoi in 1973 for running a gas
godown under the name and style of Amar Gas Services. The
tenancy, after the expiry of the original lease, admittedly
continued as a month-to-month tenancy. The rent was
enhanced from time to time and is presently stated to be
Rs.1,00,000/- per month. It is also not in dispute that
Respondent No.4, which is now a partnership firm, is carrying
on LPG distributorship business in the said premises.
7. It is further not in dispute that Petitioners issued a
quit notice dated 29.05.2025 under Section 106 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882, terminating the month-to-month tenancy
by giving thirty days' clear notice and calling upon Respondent
No.4 to vacate and deliver possession of the premises by
01.07.2025. Issuance of the said notice and termination of
tenancy with effect from 01.07.2025 are not denied. It is also an
admitted position that Respondent No.4 instituted O.S.No.758
of 2025 on the file of the Court of the V Senior Civil Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad, and obtained an order of temporary
injunction dated 24.11.2025, whereby Petitioners were
restrained from dispossessing Respondent No.4 from the
schedule property except by due process of law. The said order
expressly clarifies that it does not preclude Petitioners from
evicting Respondent No.4 in accordance with law.
8. In the above factual backdrop, the principal
question that arises for consideration is whether Respondents 2
and 3, who are statutory authorities under the Explosives Act,
1884 and the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2016, were justified in
keeping further action in abeyance and permitting continuation
of licence in favour of Respondent No.4 solely on the basis of the
aforesaid injunction order passed by the civil court.
9. The statutory framework governing the field
assumes significance. The Explosives Act, 1884 read with the
Gas Cylinders Rules, 2016 framed thereunder, regulates the
storage, transportation and distribution of gas cylinders. The
Rules prescribe a detailed procedure for grant and renewal of
licence. A reading of the relevant provisions, including the
requirement under the prescribed forms and Rule 49(2)(5),
makes it clear that an applicant must establish "legal and
physical possession" of the premises as a condition precedent
for grant or renewal of licence. This requirement is not
procedural in nature but goes to the root of the jurisdiction of
the licensing authority.
10. Further, Rule 57 of the 2016 rules mandates that
no person shall store gas cylinders without a valid licence. The
scheme of the Rules makes it abundantly clear that every grant
or renewal of licence must be supported by lawful possession of
the premises, either as an owner or under a valid and subsisting
lease. The requirement of lawful possession is integral to the
regulatory framework, which is designed to ensure safety and
compliance.
11. In the present case, it is an admitted position that
the tenancy stood terminated by issuance of notice dated
29.05.2025, with effect from 01.07.2025. From that date
onwards, there is no material to show the existence of any valid
or subsisting lease in favour of Respondent No.4. In the absence
of such subsisting lease, Respondent No.4 cannot be said to be
in lawful possession of the premises for the purpose of satisfying
the statutory requirements under the Rules.
12. The contention of Respondent No.4 as well as the
stand taken by Respondents 2 and 3 is primarily founded on
the injunction order dated 24.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.279 of
2025. This Court is unable to accept the said contention. The
injunction granted by the civil court is in the nature of
protection against dispossession except by due process of law.
Such an order does not create or confer any independent right
of lawful possession, nor does it validate or legalize possession
for all purposes.
13. It is trite that an order of injunction restraining
dispossession operates in the field of civil rights between parties
to the suit and cannot be extended to override or dilute
statutory requirements imposed under a special enactment. The
question whether a person is in 'legal possession' for the
purpose of grant or renewal of licence under the Gas Cylinders
Rules, 2016 has to be independently determined by the
statutory authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act
and the Rules, and cannot be concluded merely on the basis of
an injunction order.
14. The impugned proceedings dated 05.02.2026 issued
by Respondents 2 and 3 proceed on the premise that further
action cannot be taken till the injunction order is vacated by a
competent court. Such reasoning, in the considered view of this
Court, is clearly extraneous to the statutory scheme. The
authorities have failed to examine whether Respondent No.4
satisfies the mandatory requirement of legal possession and
have instead deferred the decision solely on account of the
pendency of civil proceedings.
15. The role of a statutory authority cannot be reduced
to that of a passive spectator awaiting the outcome of civil
litigation. The authority is bound to act within the four corners
of the statute and discharge its obligations in accordance with
law. Where the statute mandates satisfaction of certain
conditions, the authority is duty-bound to examine the same
and arrive at an independent conclusion. Failure to do so
amounts to abdication of statutory duty. The record further
discloses that Petitioners had, by way of representations dated
29.05.2025, 19.06.2025 and 28.11.2025, specifically brought to
the notice of Respondents 2 and 3 that tenancy stood
terminated and that there is no subsisting lease in favour of
Respondent No.4. The authorities had also initiated proceedings
by issuing communications dated 03.06.2025 and 10.07.2025
and thereafter a show cause notice dated 16.10.2025, calling
upon Respondent No.4 to furnish documents relating to legal
possession.
16. Having initiated such proceedings and called for
material, it was incumbent upon Respondents 2 and 3 to
consider the same and take a final decision in accordance with
law. However, instead of discharging such obligation, the
authorities have chosen to keep the matter in abeyance and to
treat the licence as deemed to be in force by invoking Rule 55(5)
of the Rules, without adjudicating the fundamental requirement
of lawful possession. The invocation of Rule 55(5), in the facts of
the present case, is wholly misconceived. The said provision
contemplates a limited continuation of licence pending
consideration of renewal application and cannot be interpreted
to permit indefinite continuation of licence in the absence of
compliance with essential statutory requirements. To hold
otherwise would defeat the very object of the regulatory
framework and render the requirement of lawful possession
otiose.
17. The action of Respondents 2 and 3, therefore,
suffers from non-application of mind to the relevant statutory
provisions, consideration of extraneous factors, and failure to
exercise jurisdiction vested in them. The impugned proceedings
are thus vitiated by arbitrariness and illegality. This Court is of
the considered view that the impugned proceedings dated
05.02.2026 are unsustainable in law, being contrary to the
provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Gas Cylinders
Rules, 2016, and liable to be set aside.
18. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is
allowed. The proceedings dated 05.02.2026 issued by
Respondents 2 and 3 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider the issue of grant
or renewal of licence in favour of Respondent No.4 strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and
the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2016, on the basis of the material
available on record, and independently of the injunction order
dated 24.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.279 of 2025 in O.S.No.758 of
2025, and to take a decision with specific reference to the
requirement of legal and physical possession of the premises. It
is further directed that Respondents 2 and 3 shall not permit
storage or distribution of LPG cylinders in the subject premises
by Respondent No.4 without a valid licence granted in
accordance with law. No costs.
19. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
07th April 2026
ksld
