ANAND NARAYAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitions involve common questions. It is also submitted by the common petitioner that the subsequent petition is the more exhaustive and an order made on the subsequent petition will govern the previous matter.

(2.) The writ petitioner entered into an agreement with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) on January 14, 2006 for selling a land in Hooghly district. THE agreement envisaged that certain payments were to be made by BPCL to the petitioner within a stipulated time. Clause 6 of the agreement gave the would be vendor a right to rescind the agreement in the event due steps were not taken within the time stipulated. It is the petitioner's case that by April 30, 2007 meaningful steps had not been taken by BPCL whereupon the petitioner issued a letter rescinding the agreement. THE petitioner says that notwithstanding the agreement having been rescinded, BPCL has continued to be in illegal possession of the land and has unfairly obtained permission from the licensing authority for operating a petrol pump at the site.

(3.) In point of time, the appellate authority's order came next. Pursuant to the remand of the matter before the appellate authority in terms of the High Court order of February 11, 2009, such authority heard the appeal from the order dated December 29, 2008 and directed on March 24, 2009 that a provisional licence be issued in favour of BPCL for operating the petrol pump. IN terms of the appellate order, the licensing authority issued a licence on March 26, 2009 upto December 31, 2009. The order of the appellate authority came to be challenged in the second writ petition filed before this Court. On receiving W.P. 6403 (W) of 2009, no interim order was made on August 27, 2009.