HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1752 OF 2001 Dated: 06-11-2009 Between: V. Saikishan Rao ... APPELLANT AND The Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1752 OF 2001 JUDGEMENT: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ appeal has been filed against order dated 25-04-2001 in Writ Petition No. 10288 of 1999 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant was the licensee of respondent No.2 for running a retail outlet of petroleum products. In pursuance of a public interest litigation, wherein certain directions were given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the Delhi High Court, the licence of the appellant was cancelled. In pursuance of the directions given by the Delhi High Court, initially a notification was issued notifying auction of leasehold rights of dealership and also the property on which the retail outlet was located. However, the said notification was cancelled and a fresh notification was issued excluding the property and notifying the leasehold rights of dealership alone. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 10288 of 1999 questioning the action of respondent No.2 in excluding the properties and notifying the dealership alone for auction. Two other petitions viz., Writ Petition Nos. 10004 and 10135 of 1999 were filed by similarly situated dealers. All the three writ petitions were heard and disposed of together by the learned single Judge. While Writ Petition No. 10004 and 10135 of 1999 were allowed by the learned single Judge, Writ Petition No.10288 of 1999 was dismissed only on the short ground that at the time of disposal of the writ petition, it has come to light that the original owner of the site in respect of which the appellant holds agreement of sale, sold the property to third parties and, therefore, the appellant ceased to be the owner of the property. In the writ appeal, the appellant has filed affidavits of Sri E. Srinivas Babu, E. Vikram Kumar and E. Dilip Kumar residents of House No. 19-149, Venkateswara Colony, Shad Nagar, Mahaboobnagar District, wherein they have stated that they have purchased the property in question from the original owner and that they have no objection to include the extent of 1663.75 square yards in Survey No. 756 in the notification to be issued by respondent No.2 for holding open auction for sale of property including the land and structures and that they will claim the balance sale consideration alone. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in view of this affidavit filed by the present owners of the property, the ground on which the writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge ceases to exist and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to the same relief as was given by the learned single Judge in favour of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.10004 and 10135 of 1999. Opposing this contention, Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 has drawn our attention to the directions issued by the Delhi High Court and submitted that the appellant failed to show that he was the owner of the property as on 01-12-1997, the date which was fixed by the Delhi High Court and, that therefore, there was no obligation on the part of respondent No.2 to include the property in the notification for auctioning the leasehold rights of dealership. We are unable to accept this contention as the contention of respondent No.2 – Corporation that one should have been the owner of the property as on the above mentioned date was rejected by the learned single Judge in the order impugned in this writ appeal. Respondent No.2 has not questioned the said finding of the learned single Judge. The only ground on which the learned single Judge rejected the relief to the appellant herein was that as on the date of dismissal of the writ petition, the property was sold to the third parties by the original owners. Since the third parties have filed the affidavit referred to above, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, the ground of rejection ceased to survive. Since the original owners have expressed their willingness to part with the land, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to the same relief as was granted by the learned single Judge in favour of the petitioners in the above mentioned two writ petitions. The writ appeal along with Writ Petition No. 10288 of 1999 is allowed subject to the condition that within two months from today, the appellant shall get the sale deed registered in respect of the site in question in his favour and produce the same before respondent No.2. Thereupon respondent No.2 shall notify the dealership, along with the properties for auction. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06-11-2009 ks