THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 33875 of 2010 M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited has appointed one M/S G.Sundar Raj as its dealer to run a petroleum outlet at Madanapally. The outlet was established upon a piece of land owned by M/S Commercial Benefit Corporation (herein after referred as CBC). Over the period, the dealership came to be operated the partnership firm, the petitioner herein. 2. The owner of the land M/S CBC incurred debts to various depositors and customers. The District Collector, Chittor initiated proceedings and seized all the properties including the land and the petroleum outlet established thereon. The proceedings were also initiated before this Court for liquidation of the company i.e. CBC by filing Company petition Nos.10 to 16 of 1999. The official liquidator/ 3rd respondent, who was appointed by this Court, was authorised to run the outlet by making certain arrangements. It is stated that the liabilities of M/S CBC are liquidated to a substantial extent. 3. The 1st respondent started running the petroleum outlet, by appointing a contractor, since 2002. On 06.06.2010 a notification was issued for selection of a service provider to operate the said unit. In W.P.No.21903 of 2010 filed by the persons interested in the land, this Court passed interim Order to the effect that the engagement of service provider in the subject premises shall be restricted up to 30.06.2011. 4. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent through letter dated 07.06.2010 requesting that the dealership be restored to them. Through their letter dated 17.08.2010 the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that the request cannot be acceded to, in view of the pending litigation. The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent has, in a way, expressed the view that he has no objection for running of the petroleum outlet by the petitioner as long as the arrangement is co-terminus with the Orders that may be passed by this Court in the company petition. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to restore the dealership in favour of the petitioner and that a direction be issued to the 3rd respondent to issue No Objection Certificate for restoration of the dealership. 5. The respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit. 6. Heard Sri Md.Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, and Sri M.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for 3rd respondent. 7. The petitioner was functioning as a dealer of the 1st respondent and running petroleum outlet over a piece of land owned by M/S CBC. The running of the dealership was disrupted not on account of any lapse or fault on the part of the petitioner. Steps were initiated by the District Collector, Chittor on complaints made by depositors against M/S CBC and the outlet was being operated by various agencies after seizing the same. The effort made by the 1st respondent to select an agency to run the outlet was restricted by this Court through the interim Order passed in W.P.No.21903 of 2010. 8. But for the pendency of the company petition vis-à-vis the land, the 1st respondent has no objection for restoration of the dealership in favour of the petitioner. So far as the 3rd respondent is concerned, his immediate concern is about the income from the land and its being available to be dealt with in the company petition. It is not as if, the petroleum outlet was remaining idle. Initially the District Collector, Chittor made arrangement after seizure and thereafter the 1st respondent has appointed a contractor. When running of petroleum outlet by the 3rd parties did not cause any hindrance to the proceedings in the company Petition and there is no plausible reason why the petitioner, who is the actual dealer, cannot be permitted to run the same. 9. Hence, the petition is allowed. It is directed that the 3rd respondent shall issue No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall take necessary steps for restoration of the dealership of the petitioner within two months from the date of copy of receipt of this Order. A condition shall be stipulated in the proceedings to the effect that the running of the petroleum outlet shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by this Court in C.P.Nos. 10 to 16 of 1999 and that the petitioner shall be under the obligation to handover the physical possession of the site, if so directed by this Court. There shall be no Order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 23rd March, 2011 KSP