1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition Nos. 921/2010 and981/2010 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Mah. and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S. S. Khadse, Adv. for the petitioner (in WP No. 921/2010). Mr. A. P. Kalmegh, adv. for the petitioner (in WP No. 981/2010). Mr. Kasant, Advocate for respondent no.5 Mr. Thakre, AGP for respondents 1 to 4 and 6. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER 2010. 1. Heard. 2. After hearing respective counsel, I find that respondent no.2 Collector has refused to renew the lease in favour of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.981/2010 after finding that plot demarcated for petrol pump earlier has ceased to exist. Before this Court, parties have produced mutually inconsistent documents and affidavits. According to both petitioners, they have received documents under Right to Information Act which demonstrate that plot still exists and is ear-marked as before for petrol pump only. According to AGP the plan has undergone revision and the plot is no longer available for the petitioners. The provisions of Burmah Shell (Acquisition of 2 Undertakings In India )Act, 1976 are not looked into by the Collector at all. They also rely upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court delivered at Bombay to urge that once the plot is allotted and is being used for petrol pump, renewal of lease cannot be declined. 3. Learned AGP is disputing this position. He has pointed out that objection was raised by the Planning Authority Municipal Council and the Municipal Council is not party respondent before this Court. He relies upon reply affidavits filed on record. 4. In this situation, I find that interest of justice can be met by directing respondent no.2 Collector to personally look into the request of the petitioners for renewal of lease and take fresh decision on it in accordance with law after hearing the petitioners, Planning Authority and the representative of the Town Planning Department. 5. Only for the said purpose and without observing anything on merit, impugned order dated 1/2/2010 and consequential order dated 11/2/2010 are hereby quashed and set aside. 6. The petitioners are directed to appear before respondent 3 no.2 Collector on 27th September, 2010 and to abide by his further directions in the matter. 7. Till the Collector decides interim order passed by this Court on 25.2.2010 to continue. 8. The Collector shall attempt to decide the matter as early as possible and in any case within a period of three months after the petitioners appear before him. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.