CWP No.1440 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.1440 of 2011 (O&M) Dated: 30th August, 2011 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhawan, 4 & 6 – Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate,Mumbai through its Territory Manager (Retail), Jalandhar and Constituted Attorney at Suchi Pind, Jalandhar. … Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab through Principal Secretary, Department of Local Government Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and another. … Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Mittal, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. 1. The petitioner seeks for quashing of the order issued by the second respondent-Municipal Corporation rejecting his claim for renewal of lease deed, which has expired on 18.09.2005. The rejection had been on two CWP No.1440 of 2011 (O&M) [2] counts: One, the Corporation was using the premises not merely for retail funding of petroleum products but had also allowed ATM to be installed. Two, there was a proposal for widening the road and the outlet would be required to discontinue its activities and the lease deed for petroleum outlet was not to be extended after 30.06.2010 vide resolution No.117 dated 15.07.2010. 2. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that it is Government of India Undertaking and the facilities such as ATM in petroleum outlets were for the benefit of public and such facilities are extended in several thousands of petroleum outlets. It is further stated that even the location of the petroleum outlets cannot be in any way inconvenient for expansion of the road. According to the petitioner, there still is enough space that could allow for the expansion of the existing road. If the owner were a private individual, perhaps there is no scope for compulsion to renew the licence or the lease on its expiry. It would be bound only by the contractual terms. As regards public authorities, the decision will at all times be decided on the scales of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petroleum outlet is reported to be at the same site since the year 1962 when it was previously M/s Burmah Shell Oil & Storage Company and later after the take-over of the Company and after the legislative transfer of its assets, the property that belonged to the State Government had been transferred to the Municipal Corporation and consequently the lease has been executed by the Corporation originally for a period of five years. It has been reported that the petitioner had been paying rent @ Rs.7,500/- per month through cheques but the Corporation had not been encashing the same. The petitioner shall be at liberty to give a detailed representation seeking such renewal of lease and the parties will be at liberty to work out fresh terms of CWP No.1440 of 2011 (O&M) [3] contract, if the respondents decide to grant renewal of the lease sought for. The decision shall be taken by the respondents in 8 weeks and till such a decision is taken, the petitioner will continue to have the retail outlet in the same place. The right of the petitioner will abide beyond a period 8 weeks on due consideration of the representation that may be given by the petitioner. 3. The writ petition is disposed with the above terms. August 30, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE