PURSHOTTAM DAS AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dtd. 22/4/2026 passed by the Collector, Ashok Nagar, whereby, allegedly misinterpreting the order passed by this Court in M.P. No.7052/2025 dtd. 14/1/2026, it has been directed that in view of the order of status-quo, the petitioner, who is running a petrol pump namely Reliance B.P. Mobility Ltd., would not be entitled to undertake fresh storage, purchase and sale of petroleum products.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the order passed in the aforesaid miscellaneous petition and, with specific reference to paragraph 13 thereof, submitted that while allowing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the respondents therein, who are also respondents in the present petition, were restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over the suit property and were further directed to maintain status-quo till final disposal of the suit. It is contended that the said direction clearly implies that the status-quo was only with regard to possession over the suit property and not with respect to the functioning and operation of the petrol pump situated thereon. However, misconstruing the aforesaid order, the Collector has restrained the petitioner even from carrying out purchase and sale of petroleum products, which action is wholly illegal, arbitrary and beyond the scope of the order passed by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that the order of status-quo was in continuation of the injunction order passed on the application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, whereby the defendants/respondents were restrained only from interfering with the possession of the suit property. Therefore, it is prayed that the communication/letter/order dtd. 22/4/2026, being perverse and unsustainable in law, deserves to be quashed.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State supported the impugned communication/letter/order dtd. 22/4/2026 and submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Collector in restraining the petitioner from carrying out sale and purchase of petroleum products, inasmuch as this Court, while deciding the miscellaneous petition, had specifically directed the parties to maintain status-quo. It is thus contended that the Collector has rightly acted in compliance with the order passed by this Court and, therefore, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, prayer has been made for dismissal of the present petition.