1 IN THE HIGH COURT of ppicaTURE AT MADRAS , AT MADURA! (Special Origa jurisdiction) W.P(MD) No, of 2023 Oil Corporati Rep by its Senior Mangan | ‘Mager (Retail Sales), ichy Divisional Office. ni 3" FI uw Petitioner 7 -Vs— 1. The District Collector, ‘Tiruchirapalli Disviet, ‘Tiruchirapalli, 2. "‘The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways), Construction and Maintenance Division, ‘Trichy wow Respondents I, K. Kennady, Christian, aged about 59 years, presently serving as the Senior Manager (Retail. $a es), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., having ollice at Triveni 3" Floor, B-: astri Road, “Yhillai Nagar, ‘Trichy -620 018 now temporarily come down to Madurai (firm and sincerely state as follows:= and do hereby solemnly @ Tam the authorized representative of the petitioner c 1) poration herein and as such any other writ petit” &cept the present one for the present Tam well acquainted with the facts of the ease, [have not filed ar the present affidavi : belief, T competent co sve" PE PISen allidevit_on beball of the petitioner corporution- Page No. No. of coms. waren | refer Tiny Divisional Oitce2D vespeettially submit that Tan filing the present writ petition seeking this Hon'ble Court to issue aWrir OF CERTIORARI ealling forthe records relating to the impugned order ma le by the Prespondent 8/2023 dated 18.12.2023 consequential impugned proceedings of the 9 756/209} in his proceeding R.C.No. D6. nid the Respondent in Lr.No. 2 dated 22.12.2023 and quash the same as illegal. 8) T respeettully state that, Fam presently se ing as the senior Manager (retail) n Oil of the petitioner corporation. The Ind Corporation / Petitioner herein is a public sector undertaking owned by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India. It has been incorporated in the y r 1959 and is engaged in the business of relining, pipe line, marketing and retail vending of peuoleum and allied products. The petitioner corporation has been operating its retail vending units throughout the country for the benelit of the general public through its owned retail oulets through authorized dealers. ) Tre establish a petroleum retail outlet in Tiruchirapp: pectfully submit that, the petitioner corporation intended to |. The said outlet was the first oudet in the district, Hence, on being approached by the oil company, the 1° Respondent / the District administration had leased a Jand to an extent of 74 cents at its disposal in SP.No.38/1B, presently T.S.No.7, Sengulam Village, ‘Tiruchirappalli. 1 is to be noted that the said Iease had been granted by the then District Collector vide his proceedings dated 10.04.1969 permitting the oil company to establish the said retail vending outlet in the said land subject to the conditions possession, stipulated therein. The petitioner eorporation was thus putcharges det of the said land in vie View of remsi, 2 requisite ance of the by the distict revenue, prior to the grant of Wis t6 he jotedd that ever ; 00 OF the the Distiet Revenue Ollicer, ‘Viruchivappalli- had lease, on identifc Property ‘or th r “ction certificate for the AIS issued no objection ¢ establishment of and the instligy of HIS and Petrol pumps by his allition of HISD # proceeding dated 20.02.1964 9) T respectfully submit that, pursuant to the said Tease, the petitioner corporation had established a peyyoleum retail outlet for vending igh speed diesel and petrol in the petiion mentioned property and for the said purpose had granted dealership to M/s. Sri Meenakshi Service Station, Trichy and thus the petrol vending outlet of the corporation has been serving the general public for the past 6 decades and even duri covid pandemic. The petitioner corporation had been regularly remitting the rent fixed and demanded by the district administration without giving y room for any compliance and without violating any conditions attached to the grant. The petiioner corporation had remitted the | c amount in respect of the said lease property for the period until 2025- i 2026 which has also been pted by the 1" respondent. However, subsequently, a portion of the s aid land to an extent of 34.46 cents has aded over to the State and presently a land to an extent of 1600 been hi sqant (39.54 Cents) is alone in the possession of the Petitioner il oullet of the Corporation functions Corporation in which the re on aa, RENNE! Page No. ‘Sond Monaper 63) (2 PRG, of Ke - inde ov | fever sre ere: foes | —~ Thety Divisional Otice" 4 it 6) Lrespeetially sub AL whet, he facta mnatr is thus, notices came to be issued by the highyys authorities on 15.03.2019, a that Petition me 18.06.2019, alleging inter ‘ntioned land is a highway nnd and therefore called upo? ‘he petitioner corporation to produce documents sought for in the said MOtices, The petitioner corporation had furnished all the requived documents slong with other proceedings t0 establish that the land in the eccupation of the corporation is a land, leased / licensed to the petitioner Corporation, ‘1 hereafter, after about . the 2" respondent herein / Assistant Di three y ional Engineer sued a notice on 16.05 (highways) i 20233 calling upon to show cause as to why we should not be evicted, claiming that the land question y department. On receipt of the said notice, the 2023, 31.05.2023 belongs to the high petitioner corporation had submitted its reply on 22.05, with all necessary documents and with a categorical stand that, the land in question does not belong to the highway and that the possession is the 3" lawlul. However, without consideration of the said replies respondent again issued a show cause notice on 03.10.2023 which was also replied on 09.10.2023. Again, without considering any of the explanation, an order of eviction came to be passed on 11.10.2023 cate and hand over the 18.10.2028 failing calling upon the petitioner corporation to possession of the petition mentioned property within which the same would be forcible taken. 7) respectfully submit that, aggrieved by the said order of eviction as the same was without jurisdiction andl in violation of the principles of natural justic consider the in as much as the eviction order did not even reply, a ssit petition came to he file by the petiioner in W-P.AID)- Page No." |" fs No. of coms. Kk. Ki NNEDY aftes sre (are Senior anager 5) feetar wer or 1nd | chy Divisional OilceNo.25169 of the order of OU the File. Court assail eviction dated 18,19, oF hig Hon! sail Hil on'ble Court had indicated 209%, 1 setition came up for hearing on 17.10.2093 | ten the 2028 Loy Admission, this Hl that so long a aS Ue Tie corporation is not revoke ay \ DSC Branted in favour of the evoke as per the Per the PFOCCECings of ye pisttiel Collector granting the lease: he by providing vt iS a show 1a month's time on CAUSE Hotieg of not less ll grounds of viok AON OF condition, the petitioner corporaion cannot be considered an illes v {an illesal occupant nor ean the corporation be evieted, The Court had posted the on 19.10.2028. Wit petition for further hearing » on 19.10.2023 the When the said writ petition tate had as (aken Up produced a copy of a notice issued by the 1” Respondent calling upon the Petitioner to show c: Isc as to why the license granted in favour of the Petitioner be revoked in the view of the fact that the Petitioner had ty, stipulated i stored a fuel in excess of the permitted reservoir capa the original license. 9) I respectfully submit that, pursuant that to, the Petitioner corporation had also submitted his reply to the said show cause notice 1.2023, contained interaila as to the fact that the license is on inrevokable in law in view of Section 60 of Easements Act, 1882, as the license is not a license impliciter but a license coupled with the to execute a work of permanent character namely’ a petrol permission sation hal incurred expenditure in its exe ‘The shun and the corporation had incurred expenditure in its exeeution, The a categorical stand, that there has been no said reply also had tah Violation of any conditions stipulated by the license granted and that there nce of anotice. Having received the reply dated is no causation for issua” 1° Respondent had passed the Impugned Order on Y 15.11.2023, the Page No. No. of coms. ae 1 RENTIEDY, ate raw oS Fanaa) Fret ores aereT waian On | per6 se receivetl PY the py 18.12.2098, which wa ition, F wh 99.19.905 ae this HOUDIG Cy | Werein on 22.12.2023. ¢ It is to be noted thi as Va ses for vac from sw of Christ V HAlion, 23.12.2023 in vie slally: submit th 10) Trespectilly 8 by the iypagned onder dated 3. the E Respondent bad cancetfe 18.12.209 _ ‘the license on account of the fact that though the anna 1 HXeA forthe lan yamely Re. 1000/2 has been remitted continuously Without default, the s ame is a meagre amount and therefore the rent should have been inereasedd and the Patitioner should have paid a higher sum but had continue to enjoy the government land without any such enhancement, ‘Thus, by the said order on the said reasoning, the I" Respondent had cancelled the license and had dirceted that all retail operation should be stopped immediately and va nt possession of the land and is to be handed over to the highways department on or before 22.12.2023 failing which the same would be removed forcibly at the cost of the Petitioner corporation. “The Impugned Order also, records, that the 2” Respondent have requested the 1° Respondent to cancel the license and therelore the omer is passed. ‘The Impugned Order also provides for an interim demand of Rs 5 AA, 000/- as an interim demand for the propens Impugned Order is perse 1) Lrespe Hon'ble Court. It is to be Wully submit that, (he illegal and warrants the interference of this eause notice ay any swoted that the only reason, discloged in hes!‘ / seservoir capacity alleged violation iy that the fire j “seal : a he fuel is stored in &% : vores + sacl notice : ply to the si stipulated in the license, "p hinw a e P oy had Phe Petggner » ihe impugned order ded one A NNEDY sere eae Far Divisional Offer yer provided his explanation on 15,11 yoy. HON qhenyhas been p. assed on the sration has been payin Rs Around hag the co” i atthe ¢ 1000/- trom the year 1966 win pancement while enjoying valuable hout cuit severmment land whi according to the is a serious violation Respondent, ‘hus, the sbeen passed on an alleged Inpugy violation which set of which the show cause AS NOL the viol ag lation in notice way issued. ‘Therefore, the fynpugned Order is in gross violation oftprinciples of natural justice ancl gs the Impugned Order is beyond the ambit of the show cause notice, 12) Trespectflly submit that, the impugned Order is also bad in view of the fa ct that the L* Respondent had disclosed in the Impugned Order, that the said order is passed in view of the request made by the 2 Respondent to cancel the license and to evict the Petitioner. ‘Therefore, the same would cle: ly establish that the exercise of the powe by the 1° Respondent is not an independent exercise of power / discretion by the 1° Respondent on satisfaction an formation of opinion that there has been a violation and the benefit granted in favour of the Petitioner is to be cancelled for contra, the above fact would disclose th: the I Respondent had passed the Impugned Onder at the behest of and on the request of the 2" Respondent, who had no role to play quo the © or its cancellation. Consequently, the Impugned Order suffers ion of the power. Tt is & settled cannon of administra tive at if the law requires a particular authority to exerci jurisprudence, th sc author ‘required to exercise such discretion power or discretion, sucht (the behest, request or suggestion of any other to play in the by himself and not a no role scheme contemplated by lay lor Any sth exercise authority, who has Of power would not be the Ga No. of corns. ic KENNEDY, af nr (IE sore eaten, yun exercise of such powe! waive8 independent deciion of the AMthorig, bu ther opinion of the other authorily Tam advised (a8 OF JAC of Air hat it fo state that the Hon'ble Apex Cour f), Line Pilots Vs DGCA, 20 (9 St WS bad etd an order is Dassed by an authority on the requess of or on the behest of another authority who has no statutory role (G, Play ins the Passing of such order the same would be patently illegal and, Without iutisdiction, ‘Vested in the light of the above principle, the Impugneg Order is extacic illegal, 18) 1 respectiully submit that, aS stated supra, though the 10.04.1969, “utustnent of the Petition mentioned property and the right to use the Proceedings of the 1 Respondent, dated refers. the same asa license, the same is nota license simplicite nd the Petitioner cannot be dispossessed at the whim of the Respondent, A the I Respondent had not merely gq and s stated supra, anted license to occupy the property also specifically permitted construction of a pettol bunk with stora facility which are Construction of permancnt nature and on the basis of 1 we wards the such permission, the Petitioner has also invested huge sums towar Ie . come itrevocable at the Same. Tn such View of the matter, the license become tex instance of the . a eply to the Respondent, “Vhe Petitioner had also in rey + license being coupled show cause notice, had specific ally pleaded that the lice ition mentioned property ‘with the right to put UP Construction in the petition me ements Act, 188! able by oper Despite such plea the impuy dition of Scetion 60 ol cet the consideration ned order docs not reflect the ed onde of the same, Ane he Hon'ble Apex Court The issue is ye ut has in POC Vs Municipal dealing with the idemi intersre ee 2021 had (06.0 L202 1 hi ' py its order dated OMPoration by yy a hand, licensed to niga ; oncet 4 circumstances, COM ea, wacra (SMe et) "age No. ares 8 anagor (4) No. of corns. facto aor | ESP bvisional Otticean Oil Comp, Tanks 1 Stol MY for | if Petrole a Me Pt pose gp eansieuetion tt and building oy had held that though the yea «fees original grant ree nly Figen se the erminable by notice, as SAME Lo he a ficense and anent structure, the said grant AN Coupled ith the pvp pes Permission 10 P semen fe ny revocation vol Ked al the mere will of the grantor and we © llega ould be illegal, nd the Thus, the resumption of the Pe Iinpagied Onder of revocation and in as much as ctition Mentioned land is illes the said plea was raised by the Petionerin reply to the show cause notice titione and the same having not be attended to by the 1 N considered. or evel the same as Respondent while passing the Impuyned Order, vitiates being product of nonapplication of min and vic lation of principles of natural justice apart from suffering from colourable exercise of power. 11) Trespectilly submit that, itis also relevant to note that the reason accorded by the 1° Respondent, for cancelling the license is that from the year the Petitioner has been paying the annual fee of Rs. 1000/ ed the property of the 1966 which is a meagre amount and had enjoy government for a commercial purpose for decades and that the same amounts to serious violation. ‘The said reasoning, sullers from complete hon application of mind and tainted with malice in law, Admittedly there had been no enhancement of the annual fee or a demand throughout by uch being the cased, the Petitioner is required under the law, only to remit the annual fee que the property. ‘The fact that the respondent had failed to enhance or demand a higher annual fee cannot - Petitioner for the l* Respondent es . be muleated against the Pett the [* Respondent cannot punish er for his own fault Consequently the Impugned Order fails the Petitione sonableness and fair play in decision making and to satisfy the test of re Page No. A No. of corns. 6 roy iS atte are Or SS) fete taror wnaarer | er miona oelo colourable NXCIeIs¢ sullers from abject | Of power coupled with surther the honapplication of mind: ' Impage 545,000 8 interiny ‘d Order also levy a demand of RB demand retrospectively nual fee from the year 9949 enhancing the a Before passing the said here has been order or enhancement | Any show cause notice nor the impugned order is illegal, same renders the Further, the State has no sively enhance the license power to retrospec fee in the absence of a fing the same for specilic legislation author any retrospective operation would require statutory validation. Further, even under the common law, the limitation to recover a monelary due by a civil action would be 3 years however, in the present case by the Impugned Order the Respondent had retrospectively enhanced and had sought to lay a demand for a and consequently the Impugned Order is period far prior to 3 y absolutely misconceived and warrants the interference of this Hon’ble Court. 15) I respectlully submit that, it is also relevant to note that the Impugned Order dated 18.19.2093 requires the petitioner to handover the petition mentioned property belore 22.12.2023. Its relevant to note ken into account that thus, even if the date of the Impugned Order is the Impugned Order requires eyjetion in 2 days of @ peel pump The carrying huge storage of Petroleuny which is at ESPIONNE substances Impugned Order which docs yoy even provide imum reasonable state ao e : oa luct period for vacating the property, yale He impusned onter | PEON ’) rende! i ails the test ol of arbitrariness writ large on the f; f the order and {ails the he face ol _ every sane cay tuannely reasonableness, Further itis to be aon th , noted th 22.12.2023 the 9 fl ened ‘ sequently: EMPUSNE’ Respondent had ised hye conse nted tha oo PMA ted that proceedings dated to be | on 8. a Sry Page No. at SOD Ea Te KENNEDY a sane (ITE sf gor s) Sef Hee oaets {RSP bunsional Oftenlo . able exe, utters from abject COURTS Neri. oy 4, Further thy Power coupled with min . ™MPUMEE Order 515000 inte nonapplication of , also levy @ emand of Rs.2. 1 demand demand retrospectively Jeo from the yea vor, enhancing the ann ‘ nae Before passing the said been order or enhancement there yea OFT is ilfoy, an ¥ show cause notice nor the same renders the impust al. by same renders the 1my il. Further, the State has no y enhance the power to retrospective license fee in the absence of a horizing the same for specilic legislation auth any retrosp ctive operation would require statutory validation. Further, even under the common law, the limitation to recover a monetary due bya civil action would be 3 years e by the Impugned Order the Respondent sent ¢ however, in the pr had retrospectively enhanced and had sought to lay a demand for a period far prior to 3 years and consequently the Impugned Order is absolutely misconceived and warrants the interference of this Hon'ble Court. 5) Trespectlilly submit that, it is also relevant to note that the Lnpugned Order dated 18.12.2023 requires the petitioner to handover AL to note the petition mentioned property before 22.12 9023. Itis relevs that thus, even if the date of the Impugned Order is taken info account the Impugned Order requires eyietion in 2 days of @ petrol pump 1 explosive substance, he stora canying huge storage of Petroleum which is Impusned Order which does not even provide nin reasonable period for va ned order a product ing the property, renders the iP" Fe omer ane asthe testo of arbitrariness writ large ery sume day namely on the face ©! reasonableness, Further itis to be noted that onthe nol ~eqnseqently impugned the 2° Respondent gg issued 4 pa (10 be noted that Proceedings dated 29,[9, 8. is dated 29.12.9993 1 8.0) 2023 served 0 Page No. & D5 No.of corns A kéennieoY . eS fee sane) ‘ fe aren oS) ocr eters Sox | Earner eis12 exttOord Hon'ble Court invoking 8 ox ‘dinary ~ Wisi f India for Folly, “Hon under Article 226 of the Constitution o! Ag oy GROUN pg rises he impugned orde "e, Atbittary, sex hibiting I ; a whim violating the Article 14 of the consttition of }yq., B. The impugned order is in Viol, lation of. 100 of principles of natur justice. C. The impugned order is without jurisdiction in as much as the same has been made by the I” respondent at the instance of the 2" Respondent and therefore the impugned order suffers from abdication of power. D. The impugned order suffers from gross non application of mind and colorable exercise of power. The impugned order is tainted with malice in law and fact and warrants interference of this Hon'ble Court. Petitioner without following . The impugned order secks to evict the 491 of the Constitution of the due proc 91 of the Const of law offending Article India. — the Petitioner's right to G. The impugned order, results in violation OM : ” . (g) apart from : Je 19 (1) @) apa carry on business guaranteed under 4 a teed ul jon of a property pose Constitution of India J depriving the Petitioner of pis rish! © which property in terms of Aqticle 30° Aol Page No. oe ah , , No. of corns. KC KENNEDY caftcs amr GSE A) RS pamper CSD ima As stated , V supra, the Petitio, raion was not served sith the loner eorpol impugned orde “ome F Vorder in its OFiginal, ‘Pye petitioner corporation has come to. al. “The petitto! know of the impusne ame had donde photo copy of the ¥ only when before this Tonble Court on 19.10.2023 in W.P.AMD).No.25169 of produce the been produced 2023. "Thus the petitioner corporalon docs not orginal impugned order for the present. Icis therefore prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to dispense with the production of the original impugned order of the 1 5238/2023 dated 18.12.2028 respondent in his proceeding R.C.No.DW/6 and the consequential impugned proceedings of the 2" Respondent in Lr.No. 756/2023/A2 dated 22.12.2093 for the present and thus render justice. As stated supra, the impugned order has been made on 18. 2.2093 and served on 22.12.2023 and the consequential impugned proceeding, has also been made on 22.12.2023 and served at 8.00 PM. ‘The Respondent is allempting to dispossess the Petitioner during the vacation and there is an urgent need 10 obtain urgent interim orders. Hence, the the leave of the court to file the present application in Peditioner crave | amo thd Vacation court. ‘As stated supra, the impusned order iy without jurisdiction anal in al ice, The + siolation of principles of melee, The petitioner corporation tas rol pump forthe past 60 been running the pel ars and by the impugned 1 be dey “dU to be deprived, Unless the impugned order nore am No. of corns. EDX & (RS) eagiane shee eee ares - js sounbt order and the same Is 9008 waarowis interfered with the same Will Occasion, iy * dd niscarriage of justice aM subject the petitioner to utmost hardship and irrey parable loss. It is therefore prayed that this Hon), Court may be pleased to grant order in the nature of a AdInterim Stay of operation of the impugned order of the 1" respondent R.C.No.D4/65238/2023 dated 18.12.9993 in his proceeding and the consequentia impugned proceedings of the 2° Respondent in Ly.No, 756/2023 dated 22.12.2023 pending disposal of the above writ petition and thus render justice. Icis therefore prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to a WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records relating to the impugned order made by the 1° respondent in his proceeding R.C.No.D4/65238 1023 dated 18.12.2023 and the consequenti 2 impugned proceedings of the 2° Respondent in Lr.No. 756/2023/A2 ne ay illegal and pass such other dated 22.12.2023 and quash the orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case and thus render justice. p U &B, i KENRESY Sonor Manager uSey Tochy Divisional Olfce, naaron BEFORE ME nly affirmed at Madurai on this the 26% day of 2023 the above contents are explained © I, he under stood and signed his name it ADVOCATE, MADURAT my presence Page No No. of corns.