THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.558 2011 Date:31.01.2011 Between: M/s. Vijaya Service Station ..... Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Chittoor and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S. Ravi, Senior counsel. Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: AGP for Civil Supplies Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri T. Srinivas Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 6: Sri S.V. Ramana The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 07.01.2011 of respondent No.1, whereby he has rejected the petitioner’s request for renewal of petrol bunk licence. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to renew its licence for a further period of three years in terms of Circular in Ref No.31/534/97, dated 14.11.1997. I have heard Sri S. Ravi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing respondent Nos.1 and 2; and Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel for impleaded respondents 4 to 6. The petitioner is a dealer, who is running a retail outlet of the products of respondent No.3. The site over which the retail outlet is situated has been let out by the father of the impleaded respondents 4 to 6 (for short “the land owner”) under a lease agreement executed in favour of respondent No.3. When the land owner sought to evict respondent No.3, the latter filed O.S.No.480 of 1991 in the Court of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Tirupathi. The said suit was decreed on 06.11.1996 for permanent injunction restraining the landowner from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the land till it is duly evicted by following due process of law. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the said judgment and decree had attained finality. When the licence granted by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioner for running the retail outlet under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 was about to expire, the petitioner made an application for renewal of licence. By the impugned order, the said application was rejected for want of further extension of lease by the landowner in favour of respondent No.3 beyond 17.11.2010. It is also stated in the said proceedings that the landowners have filed objections, dated 06.11.2010, for renewal of the lease in favour of respondent No.3. At the hearing, Sri S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, stated that non-extension of lease by the landowner in favour of respondent No.3 cannot constitute a ground for respondent No.1 to reject the petitioner’s licence. He placed reliance on Circular Ref No.31/534/97, dated 14.11.1997, issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Hyderabad, wherein it is provided as under: “In the reference 2nd cited instructions were issued regarding the issuance of licenses or the renewal, as the case may be, done only after a certificate from the Oil Companies, concerned is obtained to the effect that the concerned Oil Companies has taken on lease in respect of the outlets for which the Oil Companies taken on lease only. The President, Andhra Pradesh Wholesale Kerosene Dealers Association represented, licences are not being renewed for want of renewal of land lease deed. The matter has been examined in detail and it is decided by the Government that there is no need for the licensing authority to insist on validity of the lease deed for issue/renewal of the licences. The licences may be issued or renewed as the case may be without insisting on the lease deed or any certificate from the Oil Companies, in order to ensure uninterrupted availability of petroleum products. All the Collectors/Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad are requested to follow these instructions scrupulously.” Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel representing the impleaded respondents 4 to 6, however, placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in C.Albert Morris Vs. K.Chandrasekaran[1] and contended that the Supreme Court while interpreting Rule 153(1)(i) of the Petroleum Rules, 1976 held that where the lease period for the site on which the lessee had his petrol outlet expired and the lessor did not renew the lease and required surrender of possession, the erstwhile lessee ceased to have any right to the site, and that, therefore, the petitioner cannot seek renewal of the licence. In my opinion, it is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate on the above respective contentions of the learned counsel at this stage, because, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the same was passed without notice to the petitioner. As the petitioner’s interest is seriously affected by the order of refusal to renew the licence, respondent No.1 is expected to give a notice to the petitioner and the lessor before taking a decision on the petitioner’s application for renewal of licence. Had such a notice been issued, both the parties would have placed their respective stands before respondent No.1. Whether on the facts of the case, the Circular, on which the petitioner is placing reliance, applies or the judgment of the Supreme Court, on which impleaded respondents 4 to 6 are relying, applies, needs to be decided by respondent No.1, who is the licensing authority. Therefore, on the short ground of denial of opportunity to the petitioner to put forward its case, the impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to issue notices to the petitioner and impleaded respondents 4 to 6 and after hearing both the parties he shall pass a fresh order containing detailed reasons within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st January, 2011 GHN/MNR [1]) (2006) 1 SCC 228