Pinaki Chandra Ghose, ACJ.

This writ appeal is directed against the order dt.7.8.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in W.P. No.2401 of 2012.

2. Respondent No.5 – writ petitioner filed the writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of respondent No.4 – Joint Collector, dt.23.1.2012, whereby he rejected the writ petitioner’s application for renewal of its Form-B licence to run the petroleum retail outlet.

3. The Hon’ble Single Judge on consideration of the matter by the impugned order, set aside the proceedings of respondent No.4 dt.23.1.2012 and directed respondent No.1 – Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) to reconsider the writ petitioner’s application for renewal without insisting on production of the lease deed. It was also directed that the writ petitioner shall be permitted to run the retail outlet till disposal of its renewal application. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dt.7.8.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, this appeal is filed by respondent No.5 in the writ petition.

5. There is no dispute insofar as the facts which were presented before us as well as before the Hon’ble Single Judge, that respondent No.5 - writ petitioner is a partnership firm. The brother of the appellant herein, namely, Dannapaneni Venu Gopala Murahari Rao, is one of the partners of the said firm. The father of the said Venu Gopala Murahari Rao and respondent No.5, during his life time, executed a lease deed in favour of the writ petitioner – firm, for a period of fifteen years. Later, the lessor (father) died leaving behind the said Venu Gopala Murahari Rao, appellant herein and four others as legal heirs. Subsequently, it appears that disputes arose between the legal heirs of the original lessor. By the impugned proceedings in the writ petition, the Joint Collector rejected the renewal of licence to writ petitioner, and the said order of rejection was set aside by the Hon’ble Single Judge with the directions as aforesaid.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. It appears that after death of original lessor, who is father of the appellant, certain disputes arose between his legal heirs. The appellant wanted to take advantage in the matter and according to him lease is not subsisting at that stage and therefore the licence, which was granted under the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short, ‘the Control Order’), cannot be renewed in favour of the writ petitioner.

8. Clause 7 of the Order deals with powers to refuse licence and the same reads as under:

“7. Power to refuse Licence:- The licensing authority may, after giving the dealer concerned an opportunity to represent his case and for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to grant or renew a licence.”

9. It appears from the said Control Order that nowhere it has been stated that the licence cannot be renewed in favour of a firm. On the contrary, it appears from the Definitions Clause in 2(g) of the Control Order, that ‘dealer’ means ‘a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage, for sale of the petroleum products and includes his representative, agent and servants or any other person acting on his behalf and also a hawker but does not include an Oil Company. From the said definition in the Control Order, it appears to us that the ‘dealer’ includes even the representative of a person, who is running the business, or his agent and servant or any other person acting on his behalf. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no impediment in the Control Order to pass an order by the Joint Collector to grant renewal in favour of the firm to continue with the licence.

10. Sri M.R.K. Choudary, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of this appeal tried to impress upon us by making submissions relating to lawful possession of the property in q