NARAYAN CHANDRA MAJI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, Narayan Chandra Maji and Mr. Yadav, learned counsel representing the respondents, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and its Officers. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner in the tune of the text of the writ petition ventilated the grievance that the writ petitioner under schedule caste category had been running retail outlet of IOCL over the lease hold land under permission granted by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Since lease was expired and the lessor did not agree to allow the writ petitioner to possess the lease hold land, the writ petitioner submitted representation before the Indian Oil Corporation authority for allowing resitement, which came up to this Court since it was denied initially. By intervention of this Court ultimately the site of proposed resitement was inspected thrice and although, according to the writ petitioner, the report of the inspection was favourable and policywise there was no impediment in the matter of granting permission for resitement of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Retail Outlet of the writ petitioner from one side to other side of the road, the writ petitioner was not being allowed. Learned counsel further submitted that although there is no impediment at present, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. authority came up with the new plea that because of existence of high tension line, permission should not be granted.

(2.) In view of above grievance, the writ petitioner came up before this Court to accord writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to permit for resitement of the petitioner's retail outlet as per existing circular and for other reliefs as mentioned in the writ petition.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Yadav reserving objection due to existence of high tension line over the impugned site of proposed resitement, submitted that the writ petitioner within the record save and except setting claim orally, did not file any document that he had taken any remedy against the lessor up to the High Court to keep the site of lease in his possession and he failed, so that the proposal of resitement could have been taken into favourable consideration, which is one of the cardinal policies of resitement. Submitted further that under the site of business several articles have been installed by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at the time of initiation of running IOCL Retail Outlet by the writ petitioner. There was no document submitted by the writ petitioner that there was ever threat of eviction by the lessor or there was ever initiation of any eviction suit or over the issue there was any overtact for which any FIR had to be lodged by the writ petitioner.