HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.780 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of 1461 square yards of land at Cheriyal Village and Mandal, Warangal District, abutting R & B Road. On 18.11.2003, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, the 5th respondent herein invited applications for selection of dealers to establish petroleum outlets. The petitioner was selected as dealer and a petroleum outlet was established upon the land. The agreement between the parties was to remain in force for 30 years. An inspection was conducted by the officials of the 5th respondent upon the petroleum outlet and on finding that the product is adulterated, the dealership was terminated through proceedings dated 19.04.2006. The Arbitration initiated at the instance of the petitioner did not result in any relief to the petitioner. O.P.No.283 of 2007 filed under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act ended in dismissal. The petitioner is said to have presented a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct the 5th respondent not to entrust the running of petroleum outlet to any third parties. The 5th respondent filed counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to run the petroleum outlet, once the dealership permission was terminated. It is also stated that the 6th respondent, who has been impleaded, was selected for the purpose of entrustment of the outlet. The 6th respondent filed a separate counter-affidavit on the same lines. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the 5th respondent and learned counsel for the 6th respondent. As of now, there is no subsisting agreement in favour of the petitioner to run the petroleum outlet. It is no doubt true that it was established upon his land. The fact, however, remains that according to the terms of the agreement, the 5th respondent shall be entitled to continue its establishment upon the land. It is not as if that the petitioner was running the outlet all through and it came to be stopped on account of dismissal of O.P. Ever since the termination of the agreement, the 5th respondent is running the outlet, on its own. It should not make any difference to the petitioner whether it is being run by the 5th respondent or any person selected by it, as long as the arrangement is subject to the outcome of the proceedings, initiated by him before this Court. Another grievance of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent is paying only a sum of Rs.500/-, per month, as rent, for a valuable piece of land, with infrastructure provided upon it. The rent is also governed by the lease. However, taking into various factors, this Court feels that the rent can be enhanced to Rs.1,000/- per month. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that, a) the appointment of the 6th respondent as a dealer to run the petroleum outlet at Cheriyal Village by the 5th respondent shall be subject to the outcome of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order in O.P.No.283 of 2007; b) the 5th respondent shall pay rent to the petitioner @ Rs.1,000/- per month; c) mere pendency of C.M.A. shall not preclude the 5th respondent from entrusting the dealership to the 6th respondent; and d) The 5th respondent shall ensure that the licences required under various provisions of law are procured to enable the 6th respondent to run the petroleum outlet. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:29.03.2011 GJ