M/S Gagan Fuels (a Proprietorship Concern), Torwa Bilaspur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:48146

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

Judgment reserved on : 20.06.2025 Judgment delivered on : 18.09.2025

¶6

WPC No. 1724 of 2023

¶7

M/s Gagan Fuels (A Proprietorship Concern), Torwa Bilaspur Torwa Bilaspur, Through Its Proprietor Madan Lal Tandan S/o Late Bodhi Ram Tandan, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Near Guru Ghasidas Mandir, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1- State Of Chhattisgarh The Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

2- Collector (Food Branch) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

3- Food Controller Collectorate Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Having Registered Office At Bharat Bhawan, 4 And 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, P.B. No. 688, Mumbai - 4000001 (M.H.)

¶14

5 - Territory Manager (Retail) Bilaspur Territory Office, Old Housing Board Building, Kalpana Vihar, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

6 - Controller Petroleum And Explosive Safety Organization (Peso), Central Secretoriate Building, A Wing, 5th Floor, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶16

7 - Amarjeet Singh Bhatia S/o Sardar Rajneet Singh Bhatia, R/o B-19, Ravi Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondents

Along with

2

WPC No. 3266 of 2023

¶21

Amarjeet Singh Bhatia S/o Sardar Ranjit Singh Bhatia Aged About 58 Years R/o B-19,

¶22

Ravi Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

--- Petitioner

¶24

Versus

¶25

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh At The Instance Of District Collector, DistrictBilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶26

2 - Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Registered Office At Sewree Fort Road, Near Sewree Station, Mumbai-400015

¶27

3 - M/s Gagan Fuels Office Address At Power House, Torwa, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶28

--- Respondents

¶29

For Petitioner :	Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate appears on
	behalf of Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondents/State :	Mr.Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel lawyer
For Respondent no. 6 :	Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate

¶30

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶31

C A V Order

¶32

Petitioner has filed petition bearing WPC No. 1724 of 2023 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 28-03-2023 issued by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure P/1), whereby the respondent no. 2 without considering the factual aspect of the matter and without taking into account the fact that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for non-extension of lease, by an arbitrary order

¶33

3

¶34

cancelled the license no. 135/2013 issued to the petitioner under the Chhattisgarh Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oils (License and Control) Order 1980. The petitioner is also challenging the communication dated 30.03.2023 (Annexure P/2) issued by the respondent no. 5, whereby the petitioner has been directed to stop sales at the retail outlet with immediate effect.

¶35

2. The relief(s) sought by the petitioner in WPC No. 1724 of 2023

¶36

are as under:-

¶37

a. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 28.03.2023 issued by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure P/1) and impugned communication dated 30.03.2023 (Annexure P/2) issued by the respondent no. 5.

¶38

b. That, this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 4 and 5 to either get the lease extended or to make arrangement of retirement/shifting of the pump within stipulated time period of one month and further be pleased to direct the respondent corporation to compassionate for the losses incurred by the petitioner due to inaction of its officials. c. Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favor of the petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶39

As per the petitioner, subject matter in nutshell is such that the respondent no. 4 /BPCL invited applications from suitable candidates for award of retail outlet under the Scheduled Caste category at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. It is submitted that as per the policy, the company under took to provide the land and further under took to develop the retail outlet at its own cost. Pursuant to

¶40

4

¶41

the application and personal interaction, the petitioner was awarded the letter of intent for the dealership and the petitioner shifted his residence to Bilaspur. The company also invited application for the land owners willing to lease-out their land for the dealership and the respondent no. 7 submitted his willingness and, thereafter, a lease deed was executed for the period of 25 years. The Company developed the retail outlet on the lease land and handed it over to the petitioner. The petitioner has been running the said outlet for the last 25 years. It is submitted that as the lease period was due to expire on 30.03.2022 and the petitioner has been submitting application to the respondents for either the lease extended or to shift the pump to some other site. It is submitted that all the times, the petitioner was promised that the lease would be extended; however, nothing was done by the authorities. That, on the application made by the respondent no. 7, the respondent no. 3 has passed the impugned order on 28.03.2023, by which the license granted to the petitioner pump under the Chhattisgarh Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oils (License and Control) Order, 1980 has been cancelled in an arbitrary manner without there being any violation of the provision of license and the control order, 1980.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted dealership of retail outlet reserved for Scheduled Caste Category Person by respondent no. 4 in tune with the policy of the

¶43

5

¶44

Corporation aimed at up-liftment and participation of the persons belonging to scheduled caste category and the policy provides for handing over the developed outlet including the land to the dealer. It is submitted that the respondent corporation entered into the lease with respondent no. 7 and it is their duty to get the lease extended or to shift the outlet at some other place. He submits that the respondent no. 2 and 3 lost sight of the fact that the petitioner has not committed any default nor has violated any of the terms of the license or the Control Order 1980, hence the cancellation of the license is illegal and based on extraneous considerations.

¶45

He further submits that the petitioner after the allotment of dealership has been running the petrol pump successfully for all these years and all of sudden vide impugned order, the license granted under the Control order 1980 has been cancelled in an arbitrary manner, resulting into closure of the pump for no fault of the petitioner or the employees. He submitted that it is the duty of respondent no. 4 to get the lease extended or to facilitate the shifting of outlet at other site, however the officials of the respondent corporation acting in a high handed manner failed to perform the duty resulting in issuance of impugned order. He stated that the petitioner has been repeatedly making request since 2018 to the authorities for taking necessary steps for either getting extension of lease deed or for shifting the pump to an

¶46

6

¶47

alternate site, however the concerned authorities had done nothing in this regard. The respondent no. 1 has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner and in utter haste on the application made by the respondent no. 7 without appreciating the fact that the pump is in running condition and at least reasonable time should have been afforded to the corporation for taking necessary steps. In furtherance of his submission, he stated that the guidelines on resitement of retail outlet dealership issued by the respondent n. 4 clearly provides that in case of completion of lease deed, the retail outlet can be shifted in appropriate place.

¶48

Petitioner has filed WPC NO. 3266 of 2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by petitioner though not against any particular order of the Respondents, but against serious inaction of Respondent no. 2, being an instrumentality of the State, and arbitrariness in not vacating the land of the petitioner and illegally occupying and trespassing the same for the last one year and a half. The petitioner made a representation to respondent no. 1 for cancellation of operating licenses issued to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for operation of petrol pump at Torwa, Bilaspur due to the lapse of lease agreement between petitioner and BPCL as it was in serious contravention of the operating rules M.P. Motor Split and High Speed Diesel Oil (Licensing & Control) Order, 1980. The District Collector, Bilaspur (Respondent No 1) herein, has cancelled the license granted under Control Order,

¶49

7

¶50

1980 on 28.03.2023. Despite the same, the respondent no. 2 and

¶51

3 are illegally occupying the land of the petitioner and are not vacating the same. The inaction on part of the Respondents No. 2 and 3 is not only arbitrary in nature but also illegal under the Indian Penal Code.

¶52

7. Relief sought in WPC No. 3266 of 2023 are as under:-

¶53

“10.1 Issue a writ of mandamus to Respondent no. 2 to expedite the vacation of property of petitioner within limited time frame of 04 weeks.

¶54

10.2 Issue a writ of mandamus to respondent no. 1 to ensure vacation of property of petitioner and help him secure its vacant possession as requested vide representation dated 03.02.2023. 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted to the petitioner.”

¶55

The case in nutshell is such that the petitioner Amarjeet Singh Bhatia, entered into a Lease Agreement with BPCL on 14.01.1998 for lease of the property situated at Kh. No. 704/5, 704/6, 704/7 in Torwa, Bilaspur of size 8,000 sq. ft. Under the said agreement the property was to be leased for a period of 25 years starting from 01.04.1997 till 31.03.2022. The said lease stood lapsed on 31.02.2022. BPCL wrote to petitioner on 14.10.2021 and 07.07.2022 to renew the lease since there was no renewal clause in the Lease Agreement. Petitioner, however, did not renew the lease and has rather categorically mentioned to

¶56

8

¶57

BPCL on 02.12.2021, 28.01.2022, 23.03.2022 and 16.01.2023 that the petitioner will not renew the lease and has asked BPCL to vacate the parcel of land but to no avail. BPCL continues to occupy the Property illegally, committing trespass and has not handed over the vacant possession of the land despite almost one year since the lapse of the lease on 31.03.2022.

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the intentional delay and constructive refusal to vacate the property of the petitioner is totally arbitrary, illegal, irrational and violative of right of property of the Petitioner. A public authority i.e. refusal by the petitioner to extend lease cannot continue to occupy the land of the petitioner. Under the M.P. Motor Split and High Speed Diesel Oil (Licensing & Control) Order, 1980 a valid lease agreement is a pre-requisite for grant of operating licenses. In the absence of the same, the same has been cancelled by Respondent no. 1. In the absence of any license to operate, the continued occupation of land of the petitioner is illegal.

¶59

He further submitted that it is the duty of District Collector, a public authority and State under Article 12, to discharge its functions and ensure vacation of land of the Petitioner after cancellation of license, for which the representation was made to Respondent no. 1 along with the request to cancel the operating license. Only the operating license has been cancelled vide order

¶60

9

¶61

dated 28.03.2023 but the respondent no. 1 has not issued any instructions to respondent no. 2 and 3 to vacate the land. The owner of property, i.e. the petitioner has been denied access to his property despite the lapse of lease amount one year and a half ago and BPCL, being a governmental instrumentality, in its failure to vacate the land of the petitioner, has demonstrated dereliction of its duty to the citizen.

¶62

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that lease has already been lapsed, therefore respondent no. 2 has rightly passed the order.

¶63

Learned counsel for BPCL and Territory Manager (retail) have submitted their return, by which they stated that the order Annexure P/2 dated 30.03.2023 is a consequential order passed by the answering respondent as the Food Controller has rejected the selling license by impugned order dated 28.03.2023 (Annexure P/1). That, the answering respondent is not coming forward for negotiation for agreed mutual rent for extension and execution of the fresh lease for a long term period of 25 years. That, from document Annexure R-4-5/1 it is crystal clear that the answering respondent is always ready and willing to got execute the lease deed and the respondent no. 2 and 3 without taking into consideration that there is no order of eviction or handing over the

¶64

10

¶65

vacate land or any decree of the Competent Court of law only on the ground that the lease was not renewed or impugned order dated 28.03.2023(Annexure P/1) has been passed, which is perverse. Further, no opportunity of hearing was granted before cancelling the Selling License. Moreover, BPCL is a protected tenant and has a right to continue on the site as per the provisions of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. So far as resitement is concerned it is a discretion of the company subject to fulfillment of the conditions and the clauses of guidelines for resitement of commission dealership and the petitioner cannot claimed as a matter of right any relief that within the stipulated period of one month it should be shifted only after exhaust of all the remedies upto the resitement that too fulfillment of the clauses of the guidelines which has been framed as a matter of policy decided by the company. The petitioner cannot be said to be suffered any legal injury or has created any legal right in his favor with respect to the guidelines for resitement of commission dealership as it is a discretion of the company to take policy decision for resitement.

¶66

Learned counsel for Controller Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organisation (Peso) is a formal party and has filed the reply/return on behalf of Respondent no. 6/controller of explosives, petroleum and explosive safety organization [P.E.S.O.] Raipur, in which he stated that it is evident that neither any relief has been claimed nor any action is challenged of answering respondent, therefore, the

¶67

11

¶68

role of answering respondent no. 6 is formal in nature. It is also evident that the respondent no. 4 has submitted the relevant documents required for the prior approval towards grant of license for the retail outlet to the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Agra and thereafter approval was granted by the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Agra. It is equally apposite to mention here that the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Agra has granted the license No. MP 2339 (old) under Petroleum Rules, 1976 on 31.03.1997 (later the online license created as no. P/CC/CG/14/333(P43457)}. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 has submitted necessary documents for the renewal of license time to time to the concerned authority of this organization of the answering respondent, at present the license is renewed till 31.12.2025.

¶69

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, and perused the record with rapt attention.

¶70

On bare perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, and from the submission made by the parties, it is crystal clear that the petitioner is a dealer of retail outlet reserved for Scheduled Castes Category in Bilaspur. In WPC No. 1724 Respondent no. 4/ Company entered into an agreement. The land owner of the retail outlet property is private respondent no. 7. Earlier he has executed lease agreement with BPCL on 01.04.1997 property situated at

¶71

Khasra No. 704/6, 704/7 and 704/8 of size of

¶72

12

¶73

8000 sq. feet under the said land for a period of 25 years starting from 01.04.1997 to 30.03.2022. The said lease, therefore, stood lapsed on 31.03.2022. The private respondent did not renewed the lease and has rather categorically denied to renew the lease and issued letter to the District Collector through his counsel on 22.02.2023 for cancellation of license of BPCL Petroleum operated by M/s of Gagan and on that basis respondent no. 7 did not renewed the lease and he is not ready to renew the lease. BPCL was asked to vacate land on that basis. Food Controller/Collector Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh has passed the order Annexure P/1 and sent the memorandum to the territory Manager, BPCL area of Bilaspur and informed him as under:-

¶74

"वि�षयां��तर्ग�तले�खहै�वि�मे�०र्गर्गनफ्�‌यां�ल्सपे�ट्रो�लेपे�पेत�र��वि�ले�सपे�र खसर�न�० 704/5, 704/6, 704/7 ए�� 704/8 भू�खण्ड 8000 �र्ग�फ्#ट पेरस्था�विपेत��स � �धमे' आपे��द्वा�र�लेजडडसमे�प्तहै�न�प्रवित��दि/त �रन�, भू�मिमे��लेजडड��विनष्प्रभू��* है�न�ए��पे�पेस�चा�ले�द्वा�र� ��रण�त�ओन�दिटस��समे�ध�न��र�ज��प्रस्त�तनहै6 �रन�� रणछ०र्ग०एसएसएचाएसड* (अन�ज्ञा�पेनतथा�विनयां�त्रण) आ/�श 1980 ��तहैत�भूण्ड�रणतथा��यांवि�क्रयां��लिलेएज�र* अन�ज्ञाप्तिप्त�मे� � 135/2013 �� ले�क्टर वि�ले�सपे�र छ०र्ग० �� आ/�श �मे� � �/ख�द्य/पे�टBले-डजले/2023/1572 दि/न� 28-3-2023 �� द्वा�र� विनरस्तवि�यां�र्गयां�है�।आ/�श�# प्रवितस�लेग्नहै�।अतE विनयांमे�न�स�र आ�श्यां��यां� � �है है�त�आपे�# ओरप्र�विषतहै�।"

¶75

It is crystal clear from the record that lease deed has already been elapsed on 31.03.2022 and respondent no. 7 has not renewed the leased in favor of BPCL. It is also pertinent to mention here that BPCL has not file petition for renewal of lease deed and BPCL has not challenged the order of the concerned Collector i.e. Annexure P/01 and on the basis of expiration of lease deed the collector

¶76

13

¶77

concerned has rightly passed the order of cancellation of license.

¶78

It is pertinent to mention here that on 02^nd May, 2019 guidelines

¶79

on resitement of retail outlet dealership issued by BPCL, which are as under:-

¶80

1.1 Resitement of a commissioned dealership may be considered on the following grounds:-

¶81

a. Road widening, diversion of road, realignment of existing road by a new one, road closure, closure/diversion of a particular traffic to the area, and any road related incidents beyond the control of dealer viz. Shifting of octroi post etc.

¶82

b. Increase in disparity in State Taxes leading to rendering Ros located at inter-State border areas unviable.

¶83

For this purpose, viability will be 100 kl per month combined potential of MS & HSD.

¶84

c. Closure/acquisition of the existing site by a competent authority for reasons not attributable to dealer.

¶85

d. Closure of nearby business activities (e.g. stone quarries, road construction activities, private bus depots, etc.), beyond the control of the dealer, which were contributing to RO’s revenue, rendering the RO unviable.

¶86

For this purpose, viability will be 100 Kl per month combined potential of MS & HSD.

¶87

e. Dealer is forced to vacate existing site by the lessor or any authority after the dealer has exhausted all legal remedies upto High Court.

¶88

f. Where Corporation (BPCL) is unable to obtain legal redress to enable it to continue on the site and the legal department of the Corporation confirms (I) corporation has no registered/valid lease/option available for the site, (ii) Corporation has no protection under any local

¶89

14

¶90

tenancy and other Acts.

¶91

1.2 If dealer proposes to reconstitute the dealership along with resitement, the same will be allowed subject to meeting reconstitution guidelines in vogue.

¶92

1.3 For all cases of resitement (i.e. ‘A/CC’ site or ‘B/DC’ site), onus to provide the land will be on dealer. The land offered by the dealer can also be procured by the Corporation directly from the land owner (through negotiation on purchase/long term lease basis) in case the RO at resited location is proposed to be developed on ‘A/CC’ site basis.

¶93

Therefore, on bare perusal of guidelines Annexure P-23, it is crystal clear that resitement of commission dealership cannot be a matter of right and it is the discretion of Company as in opening clause 1.1 of the guidelines which provides that “ May Be considered, subject to the fulfillment of the ground and since it is a Company” . However, in above guideline 1.2 it is specifically proposed that if dealership proposes to reconstitute the dealership along with resitement the same will be allowed, subject to meeting reconstitution guidelines invoke. And as per clause 1.3 for all cases of resitement(A/CC) onus to provide land will be on dealer. Therefore, lease came to an end by efflux time of 30.03.2022. Continuance of possession after expiry of lease cannot be considered rank as trespasser.

¶94

19. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Subhash Chander Vs.

¶95

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) AIR 2022 SC 660 has held as under:-

¶96

15

¶97

By virtue of the statutory enactment of act 1976, the preexisting tenancy rights held by Burmah Shell with the appellants stood transferred and vested with the Central Government and thereafter by operation of Section 7, the said rights in turn stood transposed and vested in the Government Company (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) as the Government Company statutorily became the tenant of the appellants/plaintiffs. The Constitution Bench of this Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar (supra) had occasion to examined the controversy as to whether in order to get a decree/order of eviction against the tenant in the State Rent Control Act, it is necessary to give a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and taking not of various State enactments of the Act 1973, L.N. Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, observed in para 18 as under:

¶98

“Lastly our attention was drawn to the decision of this Court in Firm Sardarilal Vishwanath V. Pritam Singh [(1978) 4 SCC 1: (AIR 1978 SC 1518). The lease in that case had come to an end by efflux of time. A tenant continued in possession and became a so-called statutory tenant. The argument put forward before this Court that a fresh notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was necessary was rejected on the ground:(SCC p. 10, para 18)

¶99

“Having examined the matter on authority and precedent it must be frankly confessed that no other conclusion is possible on the first principle. Lease of urban immovable property represents a contract between the lessor and the lessee. If the contract is to be put to an end it has to be terminated by a notice to quit as envisaged under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. But it is equally clear as provided by Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act that the lease of immovable property determined by various modes therein prescribed. Now, if the lease of immovable property determines in any one of the modes prescribed under Section 111, the contract of lease comes to an end, and the landlord

¶100

16

¶101

can exercise his right to reentry. The right of re-entry is further restricted and fettered by the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act. Nonetheless the contract of lease had expired and the tenant lessee continues in possession under the protective wing of the Rent Restriction Act until the lessee loses protection. But there is no question of terminating the contract because the contract comes to an end once the lease determines in any one of the modes prescribed under Section 111. There is, therefore, no question of giving a notice to quit to such a lessee who continued in possession after the determination of the lease i.e. after the contract comes to an end once the lease determines in any one of the modes prescribed under Section 111. There is, therefore, no question of giving a notice to quit to such a lessee who continued in possession after the determination of the lease i.e. after the contract came to an end under the protection of the Rent Restriction Act. If the contract one came to an end there was no question of terminating the contract over again by a fresh notice.”

¶102

If we were to agree with the view that determination of lease in accordance with the Transfer of Property Act is a condition precedent to the starting of a proceeding under the State Rent Act for eviction of the tenant, we could have said so with respect that the view expressed in the above passage is quite correct because there was no question of determination by efflux of time. But on the first assumption we have taken a different view of the matter and have come to the conclusion that determination of a lease in accordance with the Transfer of Property Act is unnecessary and a mere surplusage because the landlord cannot get eviction of the tenant even after such determination. The tenant continues to be so even thereafter. That being so, making out a case under the Rent Act for eviction of the tenant by itself is sufficient and it is not obligatory to found the proceeding on the basis of the determination of the lease by issue of notice in accordance

¶103

17

¶104

with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.”

¶105

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of H.P. reportable in (2021) 6 SCC 771 has held while dealing with issue of alternate remedy in para 27 as under:-

¶106

27.5.When a right is created by a statue, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.”

¶107

Also Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Subhash Chander

¶108

Vs. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) reported in

¶109

AIR 2022 SC 660 in para no. 19 has held that a tenant continue in possession becomes a statutory tenant and in para 20 has specifically held as under:-

¶110

“20. It has been held that even if the lease period is determined by forfeiture under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, still the tenant continues to be a tenant that is to say that there is no forfeiture in the eyes of law and the tenant becomes liable to be evicted and the forfeiture comes into play only if he has incurred a liability to be evicted under the State Rent Act and not otherwise and further held that even after the expiry of the period of contractual tenancy, the tenant can be evicted only in terms of provisions of the State Rent Act which is applicable in reference the subject property in question. “

¶111

Therefore, it is crystal clear that as per the provisions of Section

¶112

18

¶113

2(14) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 petitioner Gagan Fuels is not a trespasser. Rights of the tenant is under Section 2(14) of the clause of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2014, whereby the protection has been granted to the statutory tenant and the right of the tenant to continue under possession after expiry of lease cannot be said to be trespasser.

¶114

It is also pertinent to mention here that on the basis of complaint made by Respondent no. 7, order Annexure P-01 was passed and thereby, rejected the said license. Though there is no order for vacating the lease land from any competent Court of law and on the basis of non-renewal of lease license has been cancelled.

¶115

Hence, even after the expiry of the lease term of the lease deed the respondent no. 4 and 5 became a statutory tenant and could be evicted only as per the provisions of Chattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. It is clear from the record that lease deed has already expired in the year 2023 and owner of the land i.e. Amarjeet Singh Bhatia has not renewed and thereafter collector has passed the order Annexure P-01 and pursuant of the order Annexure P-01 respondent no. 4 and 5 that is BPCL has passed the order Annexure P-02 which is not illegal. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly Annexure P-23 which is guidelines of the Oil Company there is a specific provision for resitement of commission dealership may be considered as clause

¶116

19

¶117

f(1.2)(1.3) and (1.4) and (1.6), therefore, if dealer propose to continue a dealership along with resitement the same will be allowed by respondent no. 4 and 5 subject to fulfillment of conditions of guidelines of resitement by the dealer of retail outlet dealership as provided by the Oil Company on 02^nd May, 2019 Annexure P-23. Hence WPC No. 1724 of 2023 is hereby disposed of with the aforementioned direction.

¶118

However, in WPC No. 3266/2023 there is statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioner to file an application under rent control Act, 2011 before the Rent Control Authority. Therefore, there is no good ground to entertain the petition. Hence the petition is dismissed with liberty to file application before the Rent Control Authority for eviction of Gagan Fuels Oil and BPCL.

¶119

Hence, both the petitions are disposed of simultaneously with the aforesaid direction and liberty.

¶120

Certified copy as per rules.

¶121

sd /- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶122

Alfiza

M/S Gagan Fuels (a Proprietorship Concern), Torwa Bilaspur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Gagan Fuels (a Proprietorship Concern), Torwa Bilaspur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Agrawal Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Limited

Murari Lal Agrawal Vs Principal Chief Commercial Manager

Harsha Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Reeta Baid Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gram Bharti Janjati Seva Mandal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jai Ambey Multispecialty Hospital Vs the State of Chhattisgarh