IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.NO.20523 OF 2008 Date:01-02-2011 Between:- M/s.Sri Vijaya Filling Station, rep.by its Proprietrix P.Vijayalakshmi. .. Petitioner And The Collector (CS), Khammam, Khammam District and others .. Respondents ORDER:- The petitioner, a dealer in petroleum products of Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited, filed the present writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 03-09-2008 of the Collector (Civil Supplies), Khammam, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to renewal of his Form-B license under the A.P.Petroleum Products (License and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980. 2. This Court, by order dated 15-10-2008, directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps pursuant to the order impugned. Thereby, the petitioner-dealer is continuing operations without a valid license. 3. W.V.M.P.No.3638 of 2008 was filed by the Collector (Civil Supplies), Khammam, the first respondent in the writ petition, to vacate the order dated 15-10-2008. Respondents 2 to 4 in the writ petition, being the owners of the land on which the petitioner- dealer is continuing operations, filed W.V.M.P.No.3658 of 2008 for the same purpose. 4. With the consent of the counsel for the contesting parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner no longer has a subsisting lease over the subject property. According to the order impugned, the lease period expired on 09-07-2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the same and states that there is no valid lease document on the basis of which it could be stated that the lease expired on a particular date. However, he is not in a position to demonstrate that his client is in possession of the subject property under a valid existing lease. 6. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner- dealer can insist upon renewal of his license for sale of petroleum products when he has no demonstratable right to continue his possession over the dealership premises. 7. The question is no longer res integra in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.Albert Morris vs. K.Chandrasekaran and others[1]. The observations of the Supreme Court therein are apposite: “….A new tenancy is created only when the landlord assents to the continuance of the erstwhile tenant or the landlord agrees to accept rent for the continued possession of the land by the erstwhile tenant. The contention of Mr.L.N.Rao that the landlord’s assent should be inferred from the conduct of the landlord who had filed the suit for ejectment, but did not pursue the same, has no force. This suit was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, liberty for which the Court has granted. The possession of this site by the erstwhile lessee does not ripen into a lawful possession merely because the landlord did not proceed with the suit for ejectment at that time, but reserved the right to bring such a suit at a later point of time. That cannot amount to an assent on his part to the continued occupation of the land under cover of a right asserted by the erstwhile lessee. The words “right to the site” in Rule 153(1)(i) must, therefore, in our opinion, be given their full meaning and the effect that unless the person seeking a licence is in a position to establish a right to the site, he would not be entitled to hold or have his licence renewed….”. 8. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the issue, it cannot be doubted that the petitioner must necessarily assert and demonstrate before the licensing authority his right to continue in possession over the licensed premises for seeking renewal of the license. As the petitioner failed to fulfill this requirement, the first respondent rightly refused renewal of this license. The impugned order dated 03-09-2008 therefore does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of Certiorari jurisdiction. 9. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 15-10-2008 shall stand vacated. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 1st February, 2011 AMD [1] (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 228