A license for a petroleum outlet automatically expires with the lease, permitting writ relief against authorities for cancellation without a formal request if substantial grounds exist.

JUDGMENT :

M. A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.

1. Petitioners have filed this Writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondents to vacate and deliver possession of the leased premises covered by Ext.P1 Registered Lease Deed dated 21.01.2004 in favour of the Respondent No.1 and seeking a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondent No.4 to cancel the Explosive License issued in favour of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 for conducting Petroleum Retail Outlet in the leased premises to the Respondent No.1 as per Ext.P1 Lease Deed.

2. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.1, Sri. S. Sreekumar, instructed by Adv.Sri.Martin Jose P., and the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the Oil Marketing Company and its Chief Divisional Retail Manager, Sri.Nithin George.

3. The contention of the Counsel for the Petitioners is that the tenure of Ext.P1 Lease Deed is over by 31.01.2024 on completion of the lease period of 20 years, and hence the Respondents 1 to 3 have no right to continue in the leased premises. The conduct of the Petroleum Outlet in the leased premises by the Respondents is illegal. In such case, this Court has ample power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the Respondents to vacate the unauthorized occupation of the Respondents 1 to 3. Learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran and Others [ (2006) 1 SCC 228 ], the decision of T this Court in . M.Biju v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others [2024 ICO 2567], which is confirmed in the Ext.P6 judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No.537/2025, and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Vijay v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others [MANU/MH/2380/2023] in support of his contentions. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the terms of settlement between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.1 which are incorporated in Ext.P2 judgment of this Court, in which the Respondent No.1 agreed that he shall follow the Rental Agreement and he will not raise any objection to the terms and conditions in the Rental Agreement and that he shall abide by the conditions in the Agreement without fail. In the Ext.P1 Lease Deed, he has agreed to surrender and deliver peaceful possession of the leased premises to the Lessors on determination of the lease, removing all installations and restoring the premises to its original state and condition.

4. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 contended that the prayers in the Writ Petition are not maintainable. The Petitioners have to approach the Civil Court to evict the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 from the premises. The decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners are clearly distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the Lessee was the Oil Marketing Company, which comes within the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India , which is amenable to the Writ jurisdiction of this Court, whereas the Respondent No.1 Lessee is a private individual, who is not amenable to the Writ jurisdiction of this Court. There is a procedure for cancelling the License issued under the Petroleum Rules , 2002, and the Petitioners cannot bypass the said procedure and seek direction to cancel the license. The Petitioners have already filed a Commercial Suit before the Civil Court for recovery of possession of the leased premises and for other reliefs, and the same has been pending consideration. The learned Senior Counsel invited my attention to Rule 152 of the Petroleum Rules , 2002, in this regard. At any rate, the Petitioners cannot seek the Writ of Mandamus without a