1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8130 OF 2008 Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. Chembur Service Station. ..Respondent. Mr.M.D.Siodia with Rohan Mahadik i/b. M/s.Rustamji & Ginwala for petitioner. Mr.J.J.Thakkar for Respondent. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JANUARY 29, 2009. DATE : JANUARY 29, 2009. DATE : JANUARY 29, 2009. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Instead of getting embroiled with the larger issues raised in the present Petition, in my opinion, interest of justice would be subserved if the Petition is disposed of with clarifying the order of status quo granted by the Lower Court to mean that the said order of status quo shall not preclude the Petitioner from taking recourse to recovery of possession of the suit property from the Respondent/plaintiff by following due process of law including by resorting to action under the provisions of Public Premises Act, if permissible. If the 2 Competent Authority were to order eviction of the Respondent in the said proceedings, that order will naturally supersede the order of status quo passed by the Lower Court, if it were to be established that the property is public premises as it belongs to the Petitioner Corporation. In other words, order of status quo shall operate only till the Competent Authority and/or the appropriate forum were to pass order of eviction against the Respondent in relation to the suit premises. 3. Counsel for the Respondent submits that this observation may not influence the proceedings pending between the parties before the Civil Court. Needless to observe that the Civil Court is bound to follow the mandate of law, if the suit premises are public premises. The question of precluding the petitioner from taking recourse to action under the provisions of Public Premises Act if available, cannot be countenanced. Inspite of pendency of the said civil action, as aforesaid, it will be open to the Petitioner Corporation to proceed in respect of suit premises if the same are public premises. 4. Counsel for the Petitioner has rightly made reference to the decision of our High Court in Writ Writ Writ 3 Petition No.5517 of 2006 in Shri Somvanshiya Petition No.5517 of 2006 in Shri Somvanshiya Petition No.5517 of 2006 in Shri Somvanshiya Sahastrarjun Kshatriya Samaj, a Trust and ors. V/s. Sahastrarjun Kshatriya Samaj, a Trust and ors. V/s. Sahastrarjun Kshatriya Samaj, a Trust and ors. V/s. Vardhaman Petrol Depot and Anr. Vardhaman Petrol Depot and Anr. Vardhaman Petrol Depot and Anr. decided on 18th January, 2008, which has opined that once the license of the dealer is terminated, question of licencee continuing to hold on to the possession is not permissible. In any case, the possession of the premises cannot be obtained by the Petitioner by force, but by following due process of law which option is left open to the Petitioner in terms of this order. 5. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)