POONAM GARG Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these petitions, the prayers sought are virtually identical. In the first instance, the petitioners have sought the quashing of notification No.P-19011/9/2001-IOC dated 06.09.2006 on the ground that the same is not applicable to the petitioners' retail outlets / petrol pumps because the petitioners / petitioners' nominees had been given the retail outlets under the land owner category pursuant to the Policy / MDPM No.319/2002 dated 08.10.2002. The petitioners have also sought the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to restrain the respective oil companies from enforcing / implementing the said notification dated 06.09.2006. Alternatively, the petitioners have also prayed that, if, for any reason, the reliefs sought for above are not granted by this court, the respondent oil companies be directed to surrender to the petitioners and the petitioners be put in actual and physical possession of the lands belonging to them within a time frame to be fixed by this court. This alternative prayer has been made on the ground that if the object of taking the land on lease for allotment of retail outlets for the petitioners and / or their nominees would have been frustrated, the the lands ought to be returned to the petitioners, who are the owners thereof.

(2.) In these petitions, there are four oil companies, namely, IBP Company Ltd (IBP), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), against whom the reliefs have been claimed. It was pointed out by all the petroleum companies other than IBP that the policy dated 08.10.2002 upon which the petitioners seek reliance was only in respect of IBP and there is no such policy with regard to the other petroleum companies. In any event, it was submitted on behalf of the petroleum companies that the petitioners had not, in any of the petitions herein, been granted retail outlets or petrol pumps by any of the petroleum companies.

(3.) They submit that what the petitioners are calling retail outlets / petrol pumps are nothing but lease agreements / deeds in respect of lands and Maintenance and Handling Contracts. The two agreements are with separate petitioners, but even if they are taken conjunctively, they do not constitute a retail outlet / petrol pump. The notification of 06.09.2006 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas pertains to the subject of operation of retail outlets of oil marketing companies on company- owned-company-operated (COCO) basis. It was submitted on behalf of the petroleum companies as well as the UNION OF INDIA that the retail outlets in question were essentially company-owned-company-operated outlets. The lands for these outlets had been taken on lease from the petitioners with the right to sub-let. The oil companies invested huge sums of money to set up their retail outlets on the lands so taken on lease. By and large, in respect of all these retail outlets, Maintenance and Handling Contracts have been entered into with parties other than the petitioners who leased out the lands to them. Such persons are also petitioners alongwith the land owner petitioners. On behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that the Maintenance and Handling Contracts were given to the nominees of the land owners.