The High Court · 2025

Petrtion under Afticre 226 of the constitution of rn 1 a praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, thr, High court may be pleased to issue writ, order or orders or direction, more r rrticularry, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of r( respondents, more particularly, respondent nos 3 and 4 at the behest of the r,r pondent nos. 5 to 9, are trying to interfere and disposes the petitioner from its pe z :eful possession and enjoyment of its petroreum retair ouflet premises bearing Nr,. 5-3-297 to an extent of 1479 sq. yards situated and adjacent to police eu e ters. Ghoshamahar, Hyderabad without following due process of law, though the s rit being O.S. No. 50 of 2025 is pending on the fire of the xrv Addr. chief Judg > city civir court, at- Hyderabad for eviction fired by the respondent no. 9 agair;t the petitioner and restraint orders dated 29-01-202s in w.p. No 263s of 2o2s td orders dated- 2g- = 05-2025 in W.P. No. 15229 of 2O2S are in operation againsr he respondents 5 to 9 restraining their hands in interfering with the peacefur possl;sion and enjoyment of the petitioners subject premises is being, arbitrary, iflegar, r uust, vioration of the Principles of Naturar Justice, without jurisdiction, besides be r E vioration of Articre 14' 19' 21 and 300-A of the constitution of rndia and co r ;equenfly direct the respondents forthwith not to interfere with the peaceful poss.r sion and en.royment of the petitioner its petroreum retair ouflet bearing no. s-3-29i o an extent of 1429 sq. yards situated and adjacent to police euarters, Ghos r rmahal, Hyderabdd without following. due process of law till disposat of the suit being O.S.No. 50 of 2025, which is pending on the file of the Learned XtV Addl. Chref Judge, City Civit Courts, at: Hyderabad. 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 direct the respondents not to interfere and dispossess the petitioner peaceful possession and enjoyment of its petroleum retail outlet bearing No. 5-3-297 to an extent of 1479 sq. yards situated adjacent to Police Quarters, Ghoshamahal, Hyderabad without following due processes of law- Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BONDEMPALLY RAMULU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cP FOR MEDICAL, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE Counsel for the Respondents No.2, 5 to 9: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS Counsel for the Respondent No.10: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.11 & 12: S.C. FOR INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., Counsel for the Respondent No.13: - The Court made the following: ORDER 1 wp_32191 2025 NBK, ] THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHI ] WRIT PETITION No.32191 of 202 'MAPAKA ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by the actions ofrespo dents No. 3 and 4 (at the behest o1- respondents No. 5 to 9) in attempting r< interlere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petroleum rer il outlet premises bearing No. 5-3-297, admeasuring 1479 square yards, ;; :uated adjacent to the Police Quarters, Ghoshamahal, Hyderabad, with:.rt foltowing due process of [aw. It is his case that respondent No. 9 has fit ,d a suit, O.S. No. 50 of 2025, on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Judg: City Civil Courr, Hyderabad, for his eviction. Restraining orders dated a(..01 .2025 in W.p. No. 2635 of 2025 and 28.05.2025 in W.p. No. 152.1 ) ol 2025 are in operation against respondents No. 5 to 9. Therefore, tht retitioner seeks a direction to the respondents not to interfere with his peac,r ul possession and enjoyment of the premises unril the disposal of O.S. No. 0 ol 2025 by the trial court.

2. Heard Mr. B. Ramulu, leamed counsel for the pet I oner; the leamed Govemment Pleader for Home; and the leamed Goverr rent pleader for Roads and Buildings. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while admittinp hat the petitioner does not presently hold any contractual lease with respo r lents No. l l and l2 - Indian oil Corporation - to operate the petroleum retrr I outlet premises, contends that the petitioner is a third party not connect( ( with Indian oil corporation and that he was a sub-lessee. Leamed couns(.i lurther contends that, even assuming the petitioner is an encroacher, the pr. rer course for the 2 wp 121S1_2025 N8K,.' respondent authorities is to approach a civil court to evict him, and that the authorities cannot interfere with his possession by any other means. Leamed Standing Counsel for the respondent-lndian Oil Corporation

4. contends that the lease with respect to the subject premises expired in 2023 (vide proceedings dated 23.12.2023), and that the petitioner is neither a lessee nor an authorized person to operate a business in the said premises. The Standing Counsel further submits that even the petitioner's own case is that he is a sub-lessee in the subject premises. He contends that the petitioner cannot continue in the premises or take recourse to civil proceedings to unlawfully retain possession of the property without authorization.

5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, this Court notes at the outset that it is an adm itted fact that the petitioner is a sub-lessee in the subji:ct premises and has no authorization to be or to operate the petroleum outlet therein. Furthermore, the lease expired in2023, i.e., two years ago. That being the case, the petitioner's contention that the Indian Oit Corporation or the respondent authorities must approach the civil court for his eviction, and that they cannot interfere with his possession, cannot be countenanced. The petitioner has no authorization from the respondent-lndian Oil Corporation to operate the business in the subject premises, and being a sub-lessee does not confer any residuaI rights to retain possession when there is no recognized or authorized right to occupy the premises. It is a settled principle of law that what cannot be done directly under law cannot be done indirectly by circumventing it. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition.

6. At this stage, leamed counsel for the petitioner requests some time to vacate the prernises on the ground that certain fumiture and material ,r/ ./ 3 wp_1279r -2U5 N8K, ] belongings remain therein. However, as noted above. he lease expired in 2023, and the petitioner has remained in occupatior [or over two years without any form of authorization or permission. Trv r years is more than suffrcient time to vacare rhe premises. Therefore, perr r tting the petitioner to continue any fufther would amount to perpetuating r r iltegality.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, u.i I a direction to the petitioner to vacate the subject premises and remov,: all his belongings within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of r is order. No costs. The respondent authorities are at liberty to take appropr i te steps to evict the petitioner from the subject premises in case of dt:. ly. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 5i;r . Sd/.K.MADHAVI necrsrnan \rarur To 1 2 //rRUE coPY// / , \ SECTION OFFICER \ One CC to SRt BONDEMPALLY RAMULU, nOvocalEi Iu?"""?iJ8fr:"3.,il.,"rti:?:r:3"13..ifi0 Famirv weri re, Hish court ror rhe for Home, High Court for the lj ate of Telangana at )PUC]

3. Two CCs to cp Hyderabad. [OUT] - LTr8"t;l:f fotS'r1"'ot & Buildinss' Hish court for t re state or reransana ro' R"'"n'"' Hish court ror the I ate or reransana at IY&.:ff.]?otPI t

6. One CC to Standing Counsel for lndian Oil Corporation I td., [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies MP/DAN // HIGH COURT DAI ED:2411012025 fAS f.( EH1 z/7\ ,1'S ll;) ll1) t' -- ,,1\.,.4'\,.r.,., r) 'r l'{ ( r. t.. C-\\ .rl. a RDER WP.No 32191 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE \1RIT PETITION WII HOUT COSTS rQ,, V