The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Cqnstitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the action of the 3'd respondqnt in not considering the petitioners request for re-locating the petrol bunk vide Shanthi Service Station from H.No.:1- 19/1, Sy. No. 386, Dharmaram, Peddapalli pistrict, to the new location vide Sy No. 162lAllAllA1A, 162lA1lA1N2, in Bonguluru Village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and rejecting the same thrOugh letter dated 18.07.2023 asking to exhaust all the legal remedies, as illegal flrbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider the re-location of the Petrol Bunk as mentioned above in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the re-location of the Petrol Bunk vide Shanthi Service Station from H.No. 1-19l 'l , Sy. No. 386, Dharmararn, Peddapalli District, to the new location vide Sy No. 162141141 lA1A, 162lA1tA1N2, in Bonguluru Village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive a copy of the Policy Circular No. 205-10/2012 datecl 04-10-2012 and the Minutes or Meeting dated Io-05-2022 liled herewith as adclitional documents in W.P. No. 30980 of 2023. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Gounsel for the Respondent No.1: Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: SRI DOMINIC FEIiNANDES, SC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRr JUSTTCp N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR ORDER: W.P. No.3O9EO t 2023 The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.3, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, in ngt considering the petitioners request for re-locating the petrol bufrk by name Shanthi Service Station from H.No.l-19/1, Sy.No.386, Dharmaram, Peddapalli District, to the new location vide Sy.No.162lA1 lAt/AlA, 162lAI lAlAl2, in Bonguluru Village, Ihrahimpatnam Mandai, Ranga Reddy District, and rejecting the same through letter dated

18.07.2023 asking to exhaust alt the lqgai remedies, liled the present wril" petition .

2. Brief facts of the case are that tfie petitioner has a dealership with the respondenl No.2, Indian Oit C<lrporation Limited, for a petrol bunk outlet by name M/s. Shanthi Service Station which was located at I{.No.1-19l 1, Sy.No.386, Dharmarar4, Peddapalli District, with SAP No.12579. The dealership cum license originally was granted to the petitioner's father Sri Ramindla Jeevandanam vide an agreement dated 31.10.1984, that is about 39 years ago, and since then they have been maintaining the Petrol Bufik to the satisfaction of the respondents as well to the general publib. It is further submitted that petitioner's father died on 08.06.2001. Thereafter, the said bunk is being run by his family and the resporldents also acknowledged and gave fresh license vide File No.G6/66/2O04 and license No.7 /2OO4. The petitioner also obtained succession certification vide O.S. No.9 of i.i 2 2Ol9 on the file of Junror Civil Judge at Peddapalli on 10.06.2019 for the running the petrol bunk business.

3. It is further submitted that since the petiti rner is having poor business for the last few years and unable to gct tl1e breakeven for the reason that many petrol bunks have com€ in and around the petitioner's bunk, without there being any addiLional demand in the market and that the landlord wanted the petitioner to vacate the premises, as such the petitioner wanted to relocrLte the krunk at Sy. No.l62lAllAl lAlA, 162lAt lAtAl2, in Bonguturu village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, :rnd e r-rterecl into a lease agreement with the landlords in respect ol the said property and written request was given on 18.07.2023 to allow ,he petitroner to re- locate his business to the new premises. It is furt her submitte d that on the very same da1,, respondents replied statirrg that ,,As per the resitment policy if deoler is forced to uacate the ,zxisting site bg the lessor/ or any authoitg then dealer has to exhaust olt his tegal remedies up to High Court" Lherefore, the request of the petitioner is not in line of that policy, hence cannot be conside rcd. Thc petitioner was informed to submit reconstitution proposal as per policy. Assailing the same, petitioner fi1ed the present writ petition.

4. On behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating that after demise of sole proprietor Sri R.Jeevanandam, the Corporation has advis ed legal herrs to produce ai1 related documents to cohplete re con stitution. But the 3 petitioner and other legal heirs evel after getting the legal heir cer[ificate in the year 2019, have not approached the respondents for reconstitution despite repeated mails/ letters sent to the m. Subsequently, the petitioner was explained about the resitement poticy by the then sales oflicer and the same has been mentioned in MoM signed on 16.05.2022 by the petitioncr. It ii further submitted that the outlet is situated on SH-7 and dealer was doing business on an average of MS-2SKLPM, HSD-SSKLPM before closing of the outlet' It is further submitted that if service levels are improved and by capturing highway market, another 50-6OKLPM sales will be increased. It is further submitted *rat as per policy, even if the petitioner is not having problem with the landlord, he has to exhaust all the remedies upto High Court irrespective of whether his relationship with the landlord is in good terms or bad terms. As per the policy of the Corporation, resiLement is allowed in certain circumstances only. In case the landloqd is asking to vacate the Retail Outlet land, then as per the resitement policy, the petitioner is required to take steps to safeguard its possession rather than acceding to the request of the landlord by vacating the Retail Outlet land. It is further submitted that substantial rnvestment were made by the dealer over the Retail Outlet land and the Corporation has also installed its equipments and any resitemen t without any efforts of petitioner, the Retail Outlet Iand would cause loss to the Corporation. _ -) .*..,' J 4

5. It is lurther submitted that the petiLion:r is bound bv the Dealership a,rreement signed by his rather and rluideLines framed by the Corporation from time to time For resitemr.nt, the policy of the Corporation js clear and same has been explairLed to thc pctitioner and the petitioner is claiming for resitemen t without following guidelines sct by thc Corporation and eventuallJ. t,rayed to dismiss the wnt petition

6. Learnecl counsel for the petitioner woulC submit that the reasons for denying Lhe request of the petitioner for resiternent that the dealer has to exhaust all the remedics upto tlle High Conrt rs not proper and the petitioner wanted to move fror n the subject land keeping long rerm good relationship with the landlord and that apart, existing business place is not giving profits ancl the pctiLioner is unable to protect even said place.

7. Learned Standing Counsel Dominic Fernancl:s appcaring for the respondents fras drawn the attention of this ( ]ourt to the policy Circular No.205-10/2-12 dated 04.lO.2Ol2 in resl,ect of rcsitcmen[ of Commissioned Retail Outlet and Change of Location at LOI stage and clause 1.1.(e) is extracted and reads as " Dearer ts forced to uacate existing site by the lessor or onA authoitg aJter the ciealer has exhausted alt legal remedies upto High court., and submitted that the said policy is aclopted throughout the country and the policy has not been under r:itallenge. The learned Standing (lounsel eventually sought to dismiss the writ petiLion. Z, 5

8. Heard the learned counsel for [he parties and perused the material made available on the record. With the consent of both the learned counsel, this writ petiLion is disposed of.

9. [t is to be noted thal in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents there is no specific reference on the issue of new proposed siLe made by the petitioner. That apart, in the impugned Iet[er dated I8.O7 .2023 , though the proposed site was mentioned there is no observation to the extent of the viability of the proposed outlet and its suitability. This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents may have to formulatc their own marketing guidelines after making a detailed survey regarding the market potential and sales potential on the ptroducts of the respondents in that region while considering the businpss prospects of the petitioner, of course to the discretion of the respondents.

10. After arguing at length, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will make a lresh representation for considering the market potential and the sales potential on the proposed site on the products of the reqpondents and the respondents may be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law for which, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that keeping in view the long term relationship with the petitroner, petitioner's representation would be considered and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with law. I I I i I I t I I 6 irtr:.* 1 1. In that view of the matter, this writ petrtion is disposed of wirh a liberty to the petitior-rer to make a fresh representation to the respondents u,ithin a period of one week, from the date of rcceipt of a copy of this order, and thereafter, the respondc.ts shall consider Lhe same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with lau,, rvithin a period of three weeks, from the date of receipt of such representatlon from the petitioner. t2. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposcd ot-. There shall be no order as to costs Asa sequcl, shall stand closed tniscellancous applications, il an1. pending, //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.PONNA KRISHNA Titl-'-=o'tl*o* y I secrror.r oFFrcER I Natural Gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.

1. The Principal gecretary, The l.lnion of lndia, Ministry oI petroleum and 2. One CC to Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma, Advocate [OPUC] 9 9n" CC to 4. One CC to Sri Dominic Fernandes, SC [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Soticitor Generat of lndia [OpUC] ^Deputy ' To, TJ PSK ',w 6*,u-,, HIGH COURT DATED:0510812025 ORDER WP.No.30980 of 2023 1l': .o.-)' fi:: lt.; (-) ._) //., r ct9 ?.16 t\ U ';) i, \.- k ,..- .-\: ,: -*u,",' ,at ",rr" rr:,tf i/ - a: ,-.' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I I I I 4 0L