AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.L. Gokhale, C.J.—The appeals seek to challenge the order passed by a learned Single Judge dated 16th August 2007 on an interim
petition bearing W.P. M.P. No. 12872 of 2006 in Writ Petition No. 11322 of 2006. This writ petition was filed by one Dr. M. Murugan and his
wife Mrs. Vimala, who are respondents 1 and 2 in both the appeals.
The appellant in W.A. No. 504 of 2008 is Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), whereas the appellant in W.A. No. 1625 of
2009 is one K.H. Rafia, who is the second respondent in the writ petition. The dispute is with respect to the running of a petrol station of
Hindustan Petroleum on the land bearing Survey No. 5/1B-15 and 5/12B (New S. No. 5/1-2B, 15 and 5/2B6) of Varnatheertham Village, Harur
Town, Dharmapuri District.
Heard Mr. Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing with M/s. Span Associates for the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation; Mr. R.
Subramanian, learned Counsel appearing for Dr. Murugan and Smt. Vimala; and Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing
with Mr. A.J. Jawad for Smt. Rafia.
The learned Counsel for all the parties agree that along with these appeals, the main writ petition itself may, as well, be decided. Accordingly,
the writ petition is taken up in the causelist and the writ appeals and the writ petition are being decided together.
The short facts leading to these appeals are this wise:
The concerned parcel of land was initially owned by one Abdul Majid. He entered into a dealership agreement with M/s. ESSO Eastern
Incorporation, the predecessor of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation on 11th March 1970. The agreement was continued from time to time. The
above-referred Abdul Majeed died on 29th January 1980 leaving behind his son A. Haroon and daugher-in-law Smt. Rafia, who took over the
business. A. Haroon died on 18th July 1988. Smt. Rafia thereafter sold the property to one M. Masi, son of Muthu Gounder on 21st October
1991. The said Masi died on 29th January 2006. His representatives sold the property to Dr. Murugan and Smt. Vimala on 23rd February 2006.
The petrol bunk on the particular property was continued to be run by the above referred Smt. Rafia under her dealership with M/s. Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation. It is, however, not disputed that from 2002 onwards, the petrol bunk has not been running. It appears from the record that
the petrol bunk became defunct and there are statements on record that in 2004, there was no petrol stock in this petrol pump.
Be that as it may, the above referred Dr. Murugan and his wife filed the writ petition praying that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation be
restrained from renewing the licence in favour of the second respondent - Smt. Rafia with respect to the particular parcel of land. Dr. Murugan and
his wife also sought an injunction to restrain the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation from supplying petrol, diesel or other allied products to Smt.
Rafia.
After hearing all the parties, the learned Single Judge has granted the injunction and, hence, these two appeals, one by M/s. Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation and the other by Smt. Rafia.
Mr. Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation submits that the dealership agreement
between this Corporation and the above referred Smt. Rafia continues to subsist. Under Clause 3 of this agreement, the said agreement is
supposed to remain in force for one year from the date of the agreement and thereafter until determined. His submission is that the agreement is not
determined and, therefore, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation should be permitted to run the petrol bunk over there with its dealership to Smt.
Rafia.
Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the aforesaid Smt. Rafia supports this submission. He submits that the
wording in the prayer is defective. The licence is given to M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation by the Government of India, Ministry of
Commerce and Industry, Department of Explosives. The dealership between M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and Smt. Rafia is that of a
Principal and Agent or that of a Dealer. In any case, his submission is that this injunction should not have been granted.
There is also a reference to Rule 153 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and also to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of C. Albert Morris
Vs. K. Chandrasekaran and Others, wherein it is held that under Sub-clause (1) of the said Rule, once the ownership of the property passes to a
different person, automatically the licence granted comes to an end. It is submitted by both the learned Senior Counsel that this judgment will not
apply to the present case. As against that, Mr. R. Subramanian, learned Counsel submits that Dr. Murugan and his wife have nothing to do with the
agreement of dealership between the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and Smt. Rafia. The land belongs to them and if they do not want this
petrol bunk to be run in their property, they can certainly object and seek an injunction that they have sought, which is what the learned Single
Judge has done.
We have noted the submission of all the learned Counsel. In our view, the position is very clear. Dr. Murugan and his wife are not parties to
the agreement between M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and Smt. Rafia, though they are the owners of the property and they do not want a
petrol bunk to be run in their property. They have sought a mandatory injunction through the writ petition, which is what the learned Judge has
done and in our view, this was perfectly justified. The petition is also fully justified with respect to this prayer. It is the right of the owners of the
property to decide as to what activity should be carried on in their property. The agreement between the other parties cannot bind them in any
manner whatsoever.
In the circumstances, both the appeals stand dismissed. The writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.