SHIV PATTI Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING pendency of these petitions, the aforesaid applications were filed by the aforesaid petitioners seeking amendment of the writ petitions. Vide order dated 18.5.2009, the aforesaid petitioners were allowed to file the amended writ petitions. Vide order dated 1.7.2009, BPCL was permitted to file counter affidavits to the amended writ petitions subject to its right to oppose the amendment applications and the petitioners were permitted to file rejoinder to the said counter affidavits. Consequently, the amended writ petitions as well as the pleadings are on record. Considering the aforesaid developments, the applications are allowed and the amended pleadings are taken on record. The applications stand disposed of.

(2.) THE petitioner in this case is the owner of land measuring 1050 square meters in Village Khanpur alias Birbhanpur, Pargana & Tehsil Salon, District Chatrapati Sahuji Maharaj Nagar, U.P. An advertisement was issued by the respondent ­ Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ,,BPCL) in the newspapers, seeking proposal from the land owners, for sale or lease of the land for a period of thirty (30) years, for establishment of retail outlets. Vide Lease Deed dated 23.9.2003, the above referred land in Village Khanpur alias Birbhanpur, Pargana & Tehsil Salon, District Chatrapati Sahuji Maharaj Nagar, U.P was leased by the petitioner to respondent no.2 ­ BPCL for a period of thirty (30) years, with effect from 1.9.2003, for running a retail outlet/ petrol pump on the said land. Vide communication dated 28.10.2003, BPCL appointed M/s Shanti Filling Station as an ad hoc dealer for running the retail outlet on the land which the petitioner had leased out to BPCL. The aforesaid ad hoc dealership, unless terminated earlier, was to come to an end on 27.10.2004. In case the dealer was interested to carry out business even after expiry of the said date, he was to make a formal application and obtain approval of BPCL before 28.10.2004, failing which the dealer was to be treated as trespasser. Though the case of the petitioner, as set out in the writ petition is that M/s Shanti Filling Station was his nominee, the said averment has been denied by BPCL, and there is no communication from the petitioner to BPCL nominating M/s Shanti Filling Station for grant of above referred ad hoc dealership. The Lease Deed executed between the parties also carried no stipulation requiring BPCL to grant ad hoc dealership on the land leased out by the petitioner only to the nominee of the petitioner. Though the case of the petitioner is that he had leased out the aforesaid land to BPCL on the assurance that the dealership would be given to her or her nominee, there is no document evidencing such an understanding. The ad hoc dealership granted to M/s Shanti Filling Station was, however, terminated vide letter dated 11.6.2007 on the ground that in order to confirm to the directives issued by the Government of India, BPCL had decided to award temporary COCO/ ad hoc dealership for running retail outlets to the existing LoI holders belonging to SC/ST, Corpus Fund Category. The ad hoc dealership agreement was terminated by giving one month notice to the dealer in terms of clause 21 of the agreement executed between the dealer and BPCL on 28.10.2003, whereby BPCL had reserved the right to terminate the said dealership, without assigning any reason whatsoever. The petitioner therefore is seeking the following reliefs in this writ petition:

(3.) THE petitioner in this case is the owner of land at Nabi Ganj, Mainpuri, U.P which he leased out to respondent ­ BPCL vide lease deed dated 27.2.2003. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid lease was conditional and subject to allotment of dealership to the petitioner. His case is that on 31.3.2003, he was allowed to run the petrol pump on the aforesaid land and since then the petrol pump is being run by him at the aforesaid site. According to him the officials of BPCL have conveyed to him that they are going to allot the aforesaid dealership to some other person. Being aggrieved, petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs: