SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Mad) 4815

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. H.L. GOKHALE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
K.H. Rafia & Another
Versus
Dr. M. Murugan & Others
W.A.Nos.1625 of 2009 & 504 of 2008 & W.P.No.11322 of 2006 & M.P.No.1 of 2009 (2 MPs)
Decided On : 12-11-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:R. Muthukumarasamy, SC, for A.J. Jawad, Advocate, R. Subramanian for Yashod Vardhan, SC for M/s. Span Associates, Advocates.

The owners of the property have the right to object to the activities carried out on their property, and the agreement between other parties cannot bind them.

Headnote:

Petrol Bunk - Property Dispute - Rule 153 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, C.Albert Morris -Vs-K.Chandrasekaran & Others (2006-1-L.W. 521) - The court discussed the dealership agreement between Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and Smt.Rafia, the ownership of the property, and the applicability of Rule 153 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and the judgment in C.Albert Morris -Vs-K.Chandrasekaran & Others (2006-1-L.W. 521) in determining the rights of the property owners and the dealership parties.

Fact of the Case:

Dispute over the running of a petrol station on a particular property between Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Dr.Murugan, and Smt.Vimala. Dr.Murugan and his wife sought an injunction to restrain Hindustan Petroleum Corporation from renewing the license in favor of Smt.Rafia and from supplying petrol, diesel, or other allied products to her.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that Dr.Murugan and his wife, as the owners of the property, have the right to decide the activities carried out on their property, and their objection to the petrol bunk being run on their property was justified. The court dismissed the appeals and allowed the writ petition, granting the injunction sought by Dr.Murugan and his wife.

Issues: Dispute over the rights of the property owners and the dealership parties, the applicability of the dealership agreement, and the ownership of the property in determining the running of the petrol station.

Ratio Decidendi: The owners of the property have the right to object to the running of a petrol station on their property, and the agreement between the dealership parties cannot bind the property owners in any manner.

Final Decision: Both the appeals were dismissed, and the writ petition was allowed, granting the injunction sought by Dr.Murugan and his wife.

Judgment :-


H.L. Gokhale, C.J.

The appeals seek to challenge the order passed by a learned Single Judge dated 16th August 2007 on an interim petition bearing W.P.M.P.No.12872 of 2006 in Writ Petition No.11322 of 2006. This writ petition was filed by one Dr.M.Murugan and his wife Mrs.Vimala, who are respondents 1 and 2 in both the appeals.

2. The appellant in W.A.No.504 of 2008 is Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), whereas the appellant in W.A.No.1625 of 2009 is one K.H.Rafia, who is the second respondent in the writ petition. The dispute is with respect to the running of a petrol station of Hindustan Petroleum on the land bearing Survey No.5/1B-15 and 5/12B (New S.No.5/1-2B, 15 and 5/2B6) of Varnatheertham Village, Harur Town, Dharmapuri District.

3. Heard Mr.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing with M/s.Span Associates for the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation; Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for Dr.Murugan and Smt.Vimala; and Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.A.J.Jawad for Smt.Rafia.

4. The learned counsel for all the parties agree that along with these appeals, the main writ petition itself may, as well, be decided. Accordingly, the writ petition is taken up in the causelist and the writ appeals and the writ petition are being decided together.

5. The short facts leading to these appeals are this wise:-

The concerned parcel of land was initially owned by one Abdul Majid. He entered into a dealership agreement with M/s. ESSO Eastern Incorporation, the predecessor of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation on 11th March 1970. The agreement was continued from time to time. The above-referred Abdul Majeed died on 29th January 1980 leaving behind his son A.Haroon and daugher-in-law Smt.Rafia, who took over the business. A. Haroon died on 18th July 1988. Smt.Rafia thereafter sold the property to one M.Masi, son of Muthu Gounder on 21st October 1991. The said Masi died on 29th January 2006. His representatives sold the property to Dr.Murugan and Smt.Vimala on 23rd February 2006. The petrol bunk on the particular property was continued to be run by the abovereferred Smt.Rafia under her dealership with M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. It is, however, not disputed that from 2002 onwards, the petrol bunk has not been running. It appears from the record that the petrol bunk became defunct and there are statements on record that in 2004, there was no petrol stock in this petrol pump.

6. Be that as it may, the abovereferred Dr.Murugan and his wife filed the writ petition praying that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation be restrained from renewing the licence in favour of the second respondent -Smt.Rafia with respect to the particular parcel of land. Dr.Murugan and his wife also sought an injunction to restrain the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation from supplying petrol, diesel or other allied products to Smt.Rafia.

7. After hearing all the parties, the learned Single Judge has granted the injunction and, hence, these two appeals, one by M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and the other by Smt.Rafia.

8. Mr.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation submits that the dealership agreement between this Corporation and the abovereferred Smt.Rafia continues to subsist. Under Clause 3 of this agreement, the said agreement is supposed to remain in force for one year from the date of the agreement and thereafter until determined. His submission is that the agreement is not determined and, therefore, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation should be permitted to run the petrol bunk over there with its dealership to Smt.Rafia.

9. Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the aforesaid Smt.Rafia supports this submission. He submits that the wording in the prayer is defective. The licence is given to M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Explosives. The d



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top