IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33770 of 2006(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.ABDUL KHADER, S/O.KAINIKKARE MAMMI HAJI, JASMINE HOUSE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KANNACHAMPATTIL JAMEELA, W/O.ALI MOHAMMED, THEKKAN KUTTUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THAYYIL AMINABI, W/O.PARAPPURATH MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, RESIDING AT DO. DO. 4. VALLAMPARAMBIL ASMABI, W/O.PARAPPURATH MUHAMMED KUTTY, RESIDING AT DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, 7-KODAMBAKKOM HIGH ROAD, MADRAS-34. 2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., 7-KODAMBAKKOM HIGH ROAD, MADRAS-34. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR SC SRI.S.SUJIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BKA WP(C).No. 33770 of 2006(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 26.06.1989. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.10.2006. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE SALE DEED. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE BKA S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 33770 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner was the owner of 23.30 cents of land in Thrikkandiyoor amsom, Thrikkandiyoor desom of Tirur taluk in Malappuram district. He leased out the said property to the 1st respondent for running a petrol bunk thereon. Subsequently, a dealership was granted in favour of the 1st petitioner for sale of petroleum products through the petrol bunk established in that property. The 1st petitioner has sold off the property to the other petitioners. The 1st petitioner now does not want to continue the dealership. The 1st petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P2 application before the respondents for surrendering the dealership and requesting to terminate the lease. Having received no favouorable response, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following relief: “ Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 as expeditiously as possible.” 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit taking the stand that neither the lease nor the dealership can be terminated. According to them, the dealership has not been given to the 1st petitioner alone. But the dealership has been given to the 1st petitioner along with 3 other persons, who are running the same on partnership basis. As such, on the request or the petitioner alone, the dealership cannot be terminated, is the contention raised. As far as the termination of the lease is concerned, according to them, the dealership and lease have no W.P(C) No. 33770 of 2006 -: 2 :- interdependence. The lease is in favour of the respondents independent of the dealership and even if the dealership is terminated, it is the right of the respondents to continue running the petrol bunk in the property on the basis of the lease executed in their favour, either through the present dealer or by appointing another dealer. 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 3. After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already filed a suit in respect of the matter, which is pending. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the writ petition may be disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to seek their remedies in the suit. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to pursue the suit appropriately, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/