IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 12710 of 2008(K) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ JACOB.K.JACOB MANAGING PARTNER,MANNARKAD FILLING STATION MANNARKAD, RESIDING AT KARIPAPARAMBIL, PAYYANADAM P.O., MANNARKAD , PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THE MINISTRY OF PETROLIUM & NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI. 2. M/S. BHARATH PETROLIUM CORPORATION LIMITED, BHARATH BHAVAN, 476, BALLARD ESTATE, BOMBAY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 3. V.P. MUHAMMED AYOOB, S/O. MOHAMMED HAJI EDAVANNA AMSOM, ERANJIKODE, MALAPPURAM BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) FOR R3 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.12710 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is running a petroleum outlet as a dealer of the 2nd respondent - Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited, in a property which originally belonged to one V.K. Kunhuni Sahib. That property was originally leased by the said Kunhuni Sahib to M/s. Burmah Sheel Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. on 30.01.1964, for a period of 20 years for running a retail petroleum outlet. The lease was renewable for a further period of 20 years upto 29.1.2004. Consequent to promulgation of the Bhurma Sheel [Acquisition of Undertaking in India] Act, 1976, the said petroleum outlet was taken over by the 1st respondent and entrusted to the 2nd respondent. The lease period was also extended upto 31.11.2003 as per the judgment in O.S. No. 146/1986 of the Munisif's Court, Mannarkad. The said Kunhuni Sahib expired in 1972. The property devolved by succession on his wife and children. The 3rd respondent herein is stated to have purchased the property comprised of the retail outlet from the legal heirs of the late V.K. Kunhuni Sahib. W.P(C)No.12710 of 2008 - 2 - Subsequently, the 3rd respondent filed O.S.No. 180/03 before the Subordinate Judge, Ottappalam for recovery of possession of the property comprised of the petroleum outlet from the 2nd respondent Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited. In that suit the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited filed a written statement contending that by virtue of Section 106 of Kerala Land Reforms Act, the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited cannot be evicted from the leased premises. In that suit M/s. Manarkad Filling Station, Mannarkad, represented by the petitioner herein as the Managing Partner got themselves impleaded as additional defendant, that suit is still pending. 2. While so, the 3rd respondent approached the additional 4th respondent seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to vacate the premises. The 4th respondent by Ext.P4 proceedings held thus: “After due consideration of facts enumerated above, particularly the fact that the BPCL had assured that the issue will be settled within a period of four months and since then one month has already elapsed and the fact that petitioner's land does not fall in 'critical site' category, the Committee desire that the issue may be settled by the Ministry/BPCL immediately with the petitioner so that the said site may be vacated by the within a period of three months. The committee also recommend that dues of the petitioner be calculated on market rate and paid to him W.P(C)No.12710 of 2008 - 3 - forthwith. The Committee would like to be apprised of the action taken in the matter within a period of three months.” The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 in this writ petition. 3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which he has questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P4 proceedings of the 4th respondent. According to them, the lessee is the 2nd respondent and the petitioner is only an agent, if at all under the 2nd respondent. According to them, the agent has no separate existence from that of the principal and when the principal has not chosen to challenge Ext.P4, the agent cannot independently challenge Ext.P4. In view of the said objection, I can consider the writ petition on merits only if I decide this issue in favour of the petitioner. 4. Therefore, I shall first decide the question as to whether the writ petition is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. Of course, the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent would point out that in the suit who has been impleaded as additional defendant is M/s Mannarkad Filling Station and the petitioner in this writ petition is one individual namely Jacob. K. Jacob. Since the party in the suit is M/s. Mannarkad Filling Station represented by its Managing Partner, Jacob. K. Jacob and the W.P(C)No.12710 of 2008 - 4 - petitioner herein is Jacob. K. Jacob, Managing Partner of Mannarkad Filling Station, Mannarkad. I do not find any merit in that objection of the 3rd respondent. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that, petitioner has obtained a dealership from the 2nd respondent to run the retail outlet in the property in question. Therefore, his fundamental right to carry on a business guaranteed under Article 19 of the constitution of India is infringed by Ext.P4 and therefore, he has an independent right, apart from that of the 2nd respondent to challenge Ext.P4 on his own. I am not impressed by this contention. Admittedly, the petitioner as the Managing Partner of a partnership firm only holds a dealership from the 2nd respondent. He has no right whatsoever in the property in his own right. There is no privity of contract whatsoever between the owner of the property and the petitioner, in so far as, the lessee is the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has no separate right in respect of the property, independent of the 2nd respondent. He can only go along with the 2nd respondent. As such, he does not have locus standi to file his writ petition on his own especially when the 2nd respondent has not chosen to W.P(C)No.12710 of 2008 - 5 - challenge Ext.P4. Further, I find that there is no decision in Ext.P4 compelling the 2nd respondent to vacate the property. They have only recorded that the 2nd respondent has assured the committee that the issue will be settled within a period of four months and the committee decided that issue may be settled by the Ministry/BPCL immediately with the petitioner therein who is the 3rd respondent herein so that the said site may be vacated by the BPCL within a period of three months. As such, the matter has been left to the 2nd respondent herein to be settled with the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the decision is that of the BPCL finally and not that of the parliamentary committee at all. As such the final decision has to be taken by the BPCL itself. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner cannot challenge the decision of BPCL in that regard, in so far as, the petitioner is bound to follow the decision of BPCL. As such, on both counts, this writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. In view of the finding on maintainability of the writ petition, it is not necessary to consider the other contentions of the parties on merits. W.P(C)No.12710 of 2008 - 6 - Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the petitioner's remedy against the BPCL may be protected. I am not expressing any opinion on that and it would be for the petitioner to establish his rights in appropriate proceedings. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs