IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that possession after the expiry of a lease deed is considered litigious and not recognized as a right to the site under Rule 152(1)(i) of the Petroleum Rules.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. M.K. Vakharia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 2, Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3, Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Dhaval Vyas, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Kunan Naik, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 4.

2. The petitioner herein is a dealer of the respondent no. 3 since the year 1970 and is carrying out its business activities of storing and selling petroleum products in the said premises and is carrying out the business activities since last more than 53 years. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2024, duly produced at Annexure-B, passed by the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Vadodara, i.e. respondent no. 2 herein, suspending the license of the respondent no. 3-company for petroleum service station situated at Plot No. NIL, Ahmedabad, Nr. Income Tax Office, Ahmedabad City, Taluka: Ahmedabad, District Ahmedabad as an interim measure with immediate effect till 02.05.2024.

3. Mr. M.K. Vakharia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that on issuance of the impugned order dated 02.02.2024, being the dealer of the respondent no. 3, the petitioner’s petrol pump is closed and in light of the aforesaid, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court challenging the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2. Mr. Vakharia, learned advocate submitted that the respondent no. 3 is in receipt of the valid license issued by the respondent no. 2. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid, it was not be open for the respondent authorities to pass an order, temporarily suspending the license of the respondent no. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is in lawful occupation of the premises in question. Reliance is placed on the pending proceedings being Civil Revision Application Nos.173 of 2004 and 177 of 2004 wherein, vide order dated 04.10.2004, the decree for possession was stayed. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have initiated the action by way of an impugned order at the behest of respondent no. 4. In light of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the impugned order be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice in view of the fact that there was no prior consultation with the stake holders and no opportunity for discussion was afforded. Placing reliance on the circular dated 26.12.2023, it is submitted that if the licensee continues in possession, pending litigation in the Courts of law, it is lawful possession and not the litigious possession and such possession is recognized as a right to site. In light of the aforesaid, Mr. Vakharia, learned advocate placed reliance on the office memorandum dated 06.02.2024 issued by respondent no. 1 whereby, it is requested that the directives issued by respondent no. 2 vide office memorandum 26.12.2023 be put on hold and consultation with stake holders including the OMCs may be done in the public interest before taking any further decision in that regard.

4. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that the petitioner herein is in lawful possession of the property in question, more particularly, in view of the order of stay, which is granted in Civil Revision Application Nos. 173 of 2004 and 177 of 2004 vide order dated 04.10.2004.

5. Mr. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 2 placed reliance on the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 which is duly produced at page-55 and submitted that the preliminary objection is with regard to the maintainability of the present petition at the behest of the petitioner as the petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned order, more particularly, when the petitioner herein is a dealer and the impugned order is passed against the respondent no. 3, which