The High Court · 2025

?y,?;n;Jj,.,,,", t3lfrq"x.Jf 5F?J.$3fi"'ff Smt Vasundhara Lat. Wo. !9t.^ grl Lalith Mohan Lal, Aged about 78 years. occ Housewife. Resident or s-s 3sn, Ei;;iffib;sh"Hvt"irHi"j soo'tijg]' Rajnish, S/o. Late Sri Lalifl cohsurtbntResr;;.t;r;t6l3y/::ilifr i"lg5$r:t"rt"?3rl"r"l"soccnsoft ware Ashish. s/o. Late sri. l arirh lMotran Lar, Aged about 4g years, occ. software consuttant Resident or s_e ssTelEi;;;;r,brd, ;ft;r.abad - s00 029 Shwetha, Wo. Manish Rai, Aged about 43 years. Occ. nesiJent'oib:g-lsi5.'ei'.i'""rbadik, Hyderabad _ 500 oFrnancal comediant, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f rhe constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order, particularry one in the nature of Mandamus to a. To set aside the proceedings No. p/SC/TG I 141 1833(14BSOS) dated 23rd Apr, 2025 suspending the License bearing No. p/sc/TGi 14r 1833 (P48505) as being iilegar, arbitrary, viorative, of the principres of naturar justice, viorative of Articre 14 0f the constitution of rndia and viorative of the petroreum ,7 Rules, 2002. b. To set aside all consequent proceec ings pursuant to the lmpugned Letter No p/sc/Tc/ 14t 1833(p48505) dated 23to4t2o2sissued by the Respondent No. 2 to the petitioner Corporation. IA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under sectton 15'1 cPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Letter No p/sc/TG/1 411833 (p4*5o5) dated 23rd April 2025 without granting a personal hearing to the pet tioner corporation as mandated under Rute 152,(.1) proviso (a) of the petroleurr Rules, 2002 and in vioration of the directions of this Honourabre court dated 24-03-2025 is iregar, arbitrary' and unsustainabre in raw and direct the Respondi:nt No.2 to forthwith grant a personal hearing to the Petrtioner corporation and p;rss a reasoned order in accordance with raw' rf the interim rerief is not grzinted, the petitioner Corporation will suffer irreparable harm and will adversel,,, affect its business operations. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI T.JAYANT JAISOORYA counserrortheRespon'"'"-t!i'lili&xjt[alt'J$t'd;tff DY.SOL.GENERAL '' Counsel for the Respondents No.3to6 : SRI KISHORE RAl, Sr.Counset The Court made the following: ORDER .n*Imz 'i'-=- { HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition No.15139 of 2025 ORDER This writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayer " a) To sel aside the Proceedings No.P/ SC/ TG/ 14/ 1833(P4B5O5) dated 23rd April, 2025 suspending the License beaing No.P/SC/TG/ 14/ 1833(P48505/ as being illegal, arbitrary, uiolatiue of the pinciples of natural justice uiolatiue of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and utolatiue of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. b) To set aside all consequent proceedings pursuant Impugned Letter No.P/ SC/TG/ 14/ 1833(P48505) dated 23/04/2025 issued bg the Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner Corporation..."

2. Heard Mr. P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms.N.V.R.Rajya Lakshmi, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.l ar,d 2 and Mr.Kishore Rai, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the impugned order dated 23.O4.2025, the Deputy Chief Controller of 2 Explosives i.e., respcndent No.2 has suspen<led the license of the petitioner as per provisions of Ruie 152( )(i) of Petroleum Rules, 2OO2 uiz., 'Euery licer"se grantted ur,-ct-er tltese rules shr*i! - (i) stancl canceLled., if the ticensee ceases to hat e any ight to the site for stoing petroleum' and the subj:ct license was suspended as an interim mea-sure ',vith r nm ediate effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits th lt the said order dated 23.04.2O25 r,i,as passed pursuax.t to t 1e interim order passed by this Court in similar rvrit petiticn irr W.P.No.B755 of 2024 on 24 .O3.2O25 granting permission for the petitioncr to submit a representation. Subsequently, petittr ner submitted a detailed representation on 10.04.2025 and il 1-,ursuance to that respondent No.2 has verified the same ard passcd order on

23.04 .2025 stating that compliance repcrt s rbmitted by the petitioner is not found salislactory as thc pr.titione r has not submitted any document in support of legal/ l,rwful possession of the land on which the subject retail outlet is ;ituated.

4. Lea.r'rred counsel for the petitioner dr aws attention of this Court to the suit and applicaticn hled by the landlords/respondent Nos.3 to 6 in I.A.No.li55 of 2023 in w ::3:: O.S.No.32 of 2023 pending on the h1e of XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad whereby the trial Court by its order dated 02.03.2O23 has granted status quo to be maintained by both the parties and the matter is sub-judice before the said Court. Thereafter, no orders have been passed in the said suit. It is further submitted that landlords/respondent Nos.3 to 6 also instituted another suit in O.S.No.234 of 2023 for eviction on the file of XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and in the said suit an Interiocutory Application in I.A.No.1 of 2O2l has been filed for temporary injunction restraining the respondent/ defendalt from subletting the suit schedule property to third parties. The trial Court by an order dated 26.O4.2023 allowed the said I.A. restraining the respondent/ defendant from subletting the suit schedule property. Learned counsel would submit even after bringing to the notice of respondent No.2 about the two suits pending before the trial Courts and interim orders and in the explalation dated 10.04.2025, and that the petitioner a-lso stated that Corporation is willing to register the fresh lease deed and that the land owners/ respondent Nos.3 to 6 have failed to perform their part of contract, as such the suits are pending before the ii4ii trial Court. Respondent No.2 without consider ng the said facts has passed the impugned order Suspending t he license of the petitioner. Questioning the action of responder.t No.2 in issuing impugned order, the present writ petition is file 1.

5. Ms.N.V.R.Ra.lya Lakshmi, learned starLding counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would submit that thr impugned order dated 23.04.2025 is only an interim suspension and no final orders has been passed and the status quc granted by XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secu rderabad is only valid upto three weeks.

6. Learned senior counsel for responcent Nos.3 to 6 submits that in the suit which is pending befcre XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in I.A.No.35S of 2023 in O.S.No.32 of 2023 an order of status luo was granted on 02.03.2023 and thereaJter counter affidavit was filed by the respondents/ defendaats and no orders have Leen passed ar-rd as on date there is no status quo. 7 . Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 srrbmits that the rFr ::5:: matter may be remanded back to respondent No.2 enabling the parties to put-forth their case with supporting documents for fresh consideration.

8. Heard learned counsel on either -side. Perused the record.

9. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 before passing the impugned order has not considcrcd the orders passed 1n I.A.No. I of 2023 in O.S.No.234 of 2023 on the file of I Junior ( ( Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and order passed in LA.No.355 of 2023 in O.S.No.32 of 2023 pending on the file of XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and order of this Court, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 23.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2 and dispose of the writ petition u,ith a direction to respondent No.2 to reconsider the explanation dated 10.04.2025 given by the petitioner after giving a fair opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 6 and shall pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also in the light of orders passed by the ::6:: trial Courts. Till then, respondent authorities shalt not disturb the possession (,f the pe titioner 1D. With the consent of ajl the parties. this u-rit petition is disposed of Miscellaneous petitions, if any, per- ding in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs \ t 1 I I I l l i -\s /-T. TIRUMALA DEVI EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \\ To, v SECTION OFFICER 'l The Petro eum and Explosives Safety Organizatior /Having its Office at Room No. 602, 6th Floor, CGO Towers, Kavadiguda, Sec nderabad - 500 080 .t I

2. The Joint controfler of Exprosives petroreum and E xorosives Safetv Organization, Having its Office at Room No. 602 O fi f f oor. Kavadiguda. Secunderabad - 500 080. -CCb-%wers, 3 One CC to SRt T.JAYANT JAtSOORYA, Advocate tOpUCl 4. one cc to sRt GADr PRAVEEN KUMAR, (Deputy Soricitor Generar of rndia), High Court for the Srate of Tetangana at UyOelaO6c iOFUCi - - - - - 5 One CC to SRt KTSHORE RAt, Advocate. tOpUCl 6. Two CD Copies. BSK M- ,t p. I 0 ( HIGH COURT DATED:09 t0G12O2S 1G o rr, I6: J o 13 JU 2U5 ('( t Dp ORDER WP.No.15139 of ZO2S DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS J I 6 11 \)