Disposed

B. Manojkumar, v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Telangana HC23 Aug 2012WP/2244/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the arbitrary auction notice issued by BPCL regarding leasehold rights, the Acting Chief Justice held that the lease period had expired in 2009, rendering the petition futile. The writ petition was disposed of without deciding the substantive issue on arbitrariness.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to approach an appropriate forum for eviction in landlord capacity. Writ petition disposed of.

B. Manojkumar, Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.2244 OF 2003

¶3

DATED:23.8.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

B. Manojkumar and others … Petitioners And Bharat Petroleum Corporation Rep. by its Territory Manager, LPG 45-A, SD Road Secunderabad and another … Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.2244 OF 2003

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

This writ petition is filed to declare the auction notice issued by respondent No.1 with regard to leasehold rights of petitioners’ property in Plot Nos.14, 15 and 16 in Sy. Nos.79, 80, 85 and 86, situated at Sahebnagar Khurd, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, fixing the reserve price at Rs.15.95 lakhs, without notice to petitioners in respect of the terminated distributorship of Sri B. Narasimha Rao, who is proprietor of respondent No.2, and without including the market value of the land, as illegal and arbitrary, and for consequential directions.

¶10

The facts of the case, as stated by the petitioners in their affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioners are the owners of the plots in question. On 12.1.1994 they have given the plots on lease for a period of fifteen years, to respondent No.2 - M/s. Bharadwajasa Agencies (L.P.G. Distributors of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited) for running LPG business. The distributorship of respondent No.2 was cancelled by the Delhi High Court in C.W No.4003 of 1995 and batch. The directions issued by the Delhi High Court in the matter, read as under:

¶11

1. Those who have commissioned the Petrol Pumps/LPG/SKO Distributorship and are running the same shall stop operating the Petrol Pumps etc. as the case may be, with effect from 1^st December, 1997. The Government of India/concerned Oil Corporation shall take over the Petrol Pump Premises or distributorship premises from these persons on 1^st December, 1997. The concerned Oil Corporation shall have the market value of the land (if it belongs to the allottee) and/or the construction thereon determined in a fair and just manner forthwith.

¶12

2. The right to run the Petrol Pumps and/or Distributorship taken over by the Government/ Oil Corporation concerned shall be disposed of by way of public auction to be held, if feasible, before 1^st December, 1997, so that as far as possible, the public may not suffer or the suffering is for minimal period. The original allottee may also participate in the auction. The Petrol Pump/Distributorship shall be allotted to the highest bidder who shall run it on original terms and conditions. He shall have all the rights in respect of the land and construction therein as the original allottee had on the date of auction, subject, however, to payments as determined by the Government/ Oil Corporation/ concerned authority being made by the highest bidder. Out of the auction money the value of the land and construction, if payable to the original allottee and as determined by the Oil Corporation shall be paid to the original allottee and the remaining amount remitted to Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. If the successful bidder is the original allottee, he shall pay the difference between the auction money and the value of the land and construction as determined by the Oil Corporation.

¶13

3. In case any of the allottee whose allotment has been ordered to be cancelled and who was running business from land owned by him and he is unwilling to sell/part with the land on which the Petrol Pump/Distributorship is being run, he shall intimate this fact to Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum within two weeks. In such a case the right to open Petrol Pump/Distributorship, as the case may be, within the close proximity of the existing location, as may be determined by the Oil Corporation concerned, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the need of the Public, shall alone be auctioned with a stipulation that the highest bidder would arrange for the land/superstructure for running the Petrol Pump/Distributorship. In such an eventuality, all connections hitherto with the distributor whose allotment has been cancelled shall be transferred to the establishment of the highest bidder.

¶14

4. The Ministry of Petroleum is directed to file compliance report by 15^th December, 1997.

¶15

The amount obtained from public auction and remitted to Prime Minister’s Relief Fund shall be utilized for social welfare scheme including making payment to Flood Victims or for any other similar purpose.”

¶16

Civil Appeal No.3100 of 2000 and batch preferred against the said judgment of the Delhi High Court was dismissed by the Hon’ble

¶17

Supreme Court, upholding the order of the Delhi High Court.

¶18

Pursuant to and in accordance with the order dt.19.10.2001 passed in Civil Appeal No.3085 by the Supreme Court, respondent No.1 – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), issued a notice on 25.1.2003 in Deccan Chronicle Daily Newspaper, for holding the auction of distributorship of respondent No.2 with leasehold rights. In that, the grievance of the writ petitioners, as it appears from the record, is only with regard to the reserve price fixed at Rs.15.95 lakhs by the BPCL for distributorship licence/lease hold rights of land together with the structures of LPG Godown and Showroom.

¶19

The contention of the petitioners is that such reserve price did not include the value of the land in question and hence the said price cannot be treated as correct value of the land and that such value arrived at by respondent No.1, is without any basis, arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶20

Per contra, it is submitted by Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the BPCL that the auction which was took place by virtue of an order passed by the Court is only with regard to the value of leasehold interest, which cannot be equated with the value of the land along with the structures. So, there is a difference between the value of the land and structures appurtenant thereto, and the value of the leasehold interest along with the structures appurtenant thereto, and both cannot be the same. Therefore, he submitted that the auction which took place is only with regard to the remaining period of leasehold interest and nothing else.

¶21

I find some substance in the submission of learned counsel for the BPCL as the value of the land and the value of the leasehold interest in the property cannot be equated at all and therefore it cannot be said that the price fixed by the BPCL only on the basis of leasehold interest is arbitrary or has no basis, as tried to be contended before me on behalf of the petitioners.

¶22

Further, on a query by this Court, it was informed that the period

¶23

of such lease in the matter has already expired in 2009. Therefore, in my opinion, at this stage, the writ petition has become infructuous since the right, which was sold at that point of time, has already lost its purpose. As the lease period in the matter has already expired in 2009, it is for the owners of the lands in question, being the writ petitioners, to take steps before an appropriate forum, for eviction of the distributor who is now in the possession of the property in question by virtue of the auction held by the BPCL.

¶24

In the circumstances, in my opinion, at this stage it is only a futile exercise to decide the question whether the leasehold interest and the value of the land can be equated at par. I only grant liberty to the petitioners to take such recourse as may be available under law to them, before an appropriate forum, ventilating their grievance in the matter as landlords.

¶25

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶26

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶27

23.8.2012

¶28

bnr

B. Manojkumar, v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Manojkumar, v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gold Star Steel and Alloyes limited, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Shri Girija Alloy and Power (I) Private Limited, Vs -

B. Rukmini bai W/o Late B.P. Nath Varma, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by Secretary

Rayalseem Green Energy Ltd., Vs Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd.

P. Ramesh Chandra Vs Chief Manager (Pad)

M/s. Godavari Drugs Limited, Vs Deputy Director