THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.463 of 2010 ORDER: The father of the petitioner was appointed as a Dealer by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short ‘the Corporation’), for establishing and running a Petroleum Outlet, in Chittoor town, in the year 1969. A piece of land owned by the Indian Railways was taken on lease by the Corporation and entrusted it to the father of the petitioner, for installation of the Unit. A petroleum outlet in the name of M/s Raja Reddy and Sons’ was established. The father of the petitioner was appointed as a dealer in respect of another outlet, in the name of M/s Krishna Reddy and Sons’. The petitioner inherited both, after the death of his father. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 26-07-2005, directing him to explain as to why the dealership be not cancelled on account of the quantity of sales was poor, and that the outlet was kept dry from 01-06-2005 onwards. The petitioner submitted his explanation, and not satisfied with that, the Corporation terminated the dealership. It appears the other petroleum outlet in the name of M/s Krishna Reddy and Sons’ was also closed, on account of the fact that the sales were poor between February and October, 2006. On the efforts made by the petitioner, the respondents revived M/s Krishna Reddy and Sons’, vide proceedings dated 01-11-2006. The petitioner states that he was under the impression that the other petroleum pump, viz., M/s Raja Reddy and Sons’, was also revived. He realized that it was not so, only when the respondents took steps for removal of the units. This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in making efforts to dispossess him from the site. The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioner. According to them, the land was taken on lease, by the Corporation, from the Indian Railways, and the petitioner does not have any rights, vis-à-vis the land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. The dealership of the petitioner was terminated on 09-01-2006, after issuing a show cause notice. The ground mentioned was that the sales were very poor. The petitioner did not challenge that order. He made an attempt to link the revival of the other unit, to this outlet also. The dealership agreements and the places of operation for both the outlets are different. Unless the order of termination passed against the petitioner on 09-01-2006 is cancelled, there is no way, that he can ignore it. Even where an order of termination is passed, a dealer cannot be dispossessed from the land, in case, the outlet was established in his own land. This, again is subject to the conditions of agreements, that may provide for exercise of option by the Corporation, to retain the land, in the event of the dealership been terminated. In the instant case, the possibility for the petitioner to resist the attempts of the respondents to resume the land does not exist, on account of the fact that the land was not owned by him, at all. Admittedly it belongs to the Indian Railways. The lease was granted in the name of the Corporation. If the petitioner, or his father were in possession thereof, it is on the strength of an independent agreement, between them, and the Corporation. Even now, the petitioner is not able to place any direct transaction between himself and the Indian Railways. Therefore, the petitioner cannot resist the attempts of the respondents to resume the land, once the dealership was cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dealership in respect of other petroleum outlet was cancelled, and that the same facility may be extended in respect of the outlet in question. For this purpose, the petitioner has to approach the respondents; and as the things stand now, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief. In case, his request is acceded to, he can be restored to the same position, which has existed earlier. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that, it shall be open to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents, to restore the dealership. In case the dealership is restored, he shall be put in the same position, that obtained before the cancellation of dealership and removal of the machinery, etc. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.26-02-2010. KO