WP/5370/2025 of Sri HariBabu Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited. on 6 January 2026

ORDER:

Challenging the inaction of respondents.in restoring Plot Nos. l/Part and 2/Part, admeasuring 937.33 square yards in Sunrey Nos. 150 and 151 and Plot Nos. A-g3lPart, A- 93a/ParL, A-11lPart &. A and A-11La/Part admeasuring 196 square yards of Bachupally Village, Pragathi Nagar Gram Panchayat, Qutbullapur Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District thus totally admeasuring 1133.33 square lards to its origrnal state and handing over peaceful possession to petitioners in spite of explry of lease period on 23.L1.2O24 and also suspension of orplosive license by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Secunderabad uide proceedings dated

20. OL.2025, petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.

2. Petitioners state that initially, they entered into an Agreemr:nt of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with Sri G. Sanjay Chowdary, who was the absolute owner of Plot Nos. 1 and 2, admeasuring 1133.33 Sq. Yards or 947.46 Sq. Mtrs.in Survey llos. 150 and 151. The said Sanjay Chowdary executed a register,:d AGPA dated 26.12.2005 in favour of petitioners who thereafter, alienated 196 Square yards out of 1133.33 squa.re yards frlr the sake of convenience and subsequently, purchased subject property from C. Suguna for the sake of square portion of an extent 196 square yards through sale.deed dated 03.05.201O and also executed registered sale d.eed. dated J,9.06.2017. Since then, petitioners are continuing as absolute owners and possessors of the aforesaid propert5r.

2. L. While SO, at request, petitioners as an AGPA executr:d lease deed dated 25.1L.2OO9 in respect of the above properly, in favour of the 2rLd resporident for 15 years commencing from 24.LL.2OO9 for establishing a petroleum outlet and as per the aforesaid lease deed, term of lease expired on 23.1L.2O24. Therefore, petitioners requested respondents to vacate the aforesaid. premises and hand them over peaceful possession as they do not have any intention to extend the lease. In this regard, petitioners addressed representations dated 06.11 .2024 to respondents, Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda and Deputy Chief Controller' of Explosives, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation, Secunderabad, to take action to cancel the explosive licence in favour of respondents and also sought for vacating the premises. Pursuant to the sarne, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation, Secunderabad, addressed letter dated 24.L2.2O24 to the l"t respondent to show cause as to why the subject license issued in favour of the 2nd reipondent should not be suspended/cancelled.

2.2. It is stated, the lst respondent issued letter dated

26. L2.2O24 to the 2'd respondent to furnish documents with regard to lawful/legal possession of the subject land on which retail outlet is situated and sought for action plan within seven days. Sine there is no reply, the competent authority - Ministry of Commerce and Industry suspended the license granted to the 2'd respondent on 20.O1 .2025 as per the provisionq of Rule 152(1Xi) qf Petroleum Rules, 2OO2 with immediate effect, till 2O.O4.2O25 as an interim measure. Though petitioners made several written requests, respondents neither vacated the premis€:s nor removed the structures, assets lyrng thereon, even after o:piry of lease period and also even after suspension of explosive licence and they are continuing in unlawful possession of the premises.

2.3. According to petitioners, the 1"t respondent state- owned tlorporation is expected to act fairly and on completion of lease p:riod between petitioners and the 2"d respondent, they ought t,r have directed the 2.d respondent to vacate and restore the pre:rniss. to its original state and deliver possession to petitioners.

3. On behatf of Respondent No.l Corporation, it is stated lhat lease deed was executed between petjtioners and Respondent No. 2, who is a private party. It is now well-settled that writs are not maintainable against a private party. since prayer ls sought against private p4rt5r, merely to make the writ maintainable, corporation was also made a party. Furthermore, the dispute is of eviction between two private parties, hence the appropriate forum is civil court. Therefore, it is prayed that writ Petition be dismissed.

4. The 2od respondent filed counter, ad.mitting leasing out of petitioners' propert5r in his favour for establishing and runninlg a retail outlet of India oil corporation Limited i : I I I I I I

popularly named as ?ragathi Filling Station'for 15 years from 24.1L.2OO9 and expiry of said lease on 23.17.2024. However, it is stated, thereafter the 2"d respondent could not get alternate land immediately as required to continue the fuel station as per the terms and conditions imposed by the lst respondent. Thereafter, acting on the representations of petitioners, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry cancelled his licence. However, the 2'd respondent requested petitioners to extend. lease period, but for reasons best known to them, they could not come forward for further communication and demanded for eviction. The 2.d respondent, with a view to safeguard the employees of the fuel station, made all efforts to extend the lease period with petitioners but all the attempts became futile. If petitioners grant another two months to get alternate land, which would help to restore the fuel station, the same would be more helpful to the employees. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may grant two months duration to vacate the subject premises. . ' ,

5. Heard Sri G. Vasantha Ra5rudu, learned counsel for petitioners, Sd Dominic Fernandes, learned counsel for Respondent No.l and Sri G. Srinivas, learned. counsel for Respondent No.2. I : i I I

6. There is no dispute that petitioners leased out the subject premises to the 2nd respond.ent for establishing petroleurm outlet for rs years which came to an end by 23.11.2J24, however, after expiry of rease, Respondent No.2 did not vac.te the premises. In those circumstances, petitioners are before this Court.

7. In similar circumstances, in writ petitions No. 25779 and 18813 of 2024, this court had dealt with the issue of maintai;rability and the question as to whether the action of respondents, as pubric authorities, in failing to vacate the subject premises after expiry of the lease amounts to arbitrary action. vrarranting invocation of Article 226 of the constitution and hel,l in favour of petitioners therein by the common order dated 111.11 .2024. 8' In view of the said order and in view of the specific request of the 2nd respondent in the counter to grant two more months to vacate the subject premises as he could not secure alternatr: premises, there is no necessit5r for this court to delve deep inr:o the matter. suflice to direct the 2od respondent to vacate the subject premises in a fixed time-frame.

The writ petition is therefore, d.isposed of directing the 2'd respondent to vacate the subject premises and hand ' I I I I i ! i..i ! .,: l;3

over vacant possession to petitioners within six months from today. No costs.

10. Consequently, tJle miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. D/.P. PONNA KR ISTANT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Executive Director and State Head, lndian Limited., R+. To lndian Oil Bhavan, Fatehbagh, !aga1, _Hyderabad, Tela ngana One CC to SRI G.VASANTHA Moosapet

- 500 018 RAYUDU, Advocate One CC to M/s DOMINIC FERNANDES (SC FOR I One CC to SRI c.SRlN IVAS, Advocate (OPUC) Estate, Sanath loPUCl OCL) Advocate [OPUC]

M SA BS Two CD Copies

l I HIGH CC)URT DATED:06/01 l20ZG

ORDER

WP.No.5370 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. i 2t JAtl 20ffi \) * IA S oo \ 1A t 'l