The availability of an alternative remedy under Rule 154 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 renders a writ petition not maintainable.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

2. It has been stated that the petitioner Corporation has set up a network of retail outlet dealers through whom it markets its petroleum products. One such retail outlet is situated, at Pantheon Road, Egmore, in the land belonging to the respondents 2 to 4. The superstructure in the said land, the underground storage tank and the other fittings therein, belong to the petitioner Corporation.

3. It had been further stated that the vacant land, comprised in survey No.1285 part, in Chintadaripet, Egmore, Chennai, admeasuring 5844 sq.ft., had been leased out, by late J.S.Mitchell and C.A.Nunis, in favour of the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing company of India Ltd., the predecessor in title of the petitioner Corporation, for a period of 20 years by way of a lease deed, dated 15.2.1964. The lease period was, from 1.10.1963 to 30.9.1983. Another portion of the vacant land, having an extent of 2929 sq.ft., in the same survey number, at No.501 Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai, had also been taken on lease, by the said Company, from W.H.Nune and Daisy Nune, by way of a lease deed, dated 17.2.1964, for a period of 20 years. Finally, the right over the title and interest of the Company had vested in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the petitioner in the present writ petition.

4. It has been further stated that, in terms of Sections 5(2) and 7(3) of the Act 2 of 1976, the petitioner had exercised its statutory option to renew the lease, for a further period of 20 years, by way of a letter, dated 17.8.1983, on the same terms and conditions as that of the previous lease granted in favour of the erstwhile Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd. Consequently, the lease had been renewed, statutorily, from 1.10.1983 to 30.9.2003. While so, the respondents 2 and 3 had filed a writ petition, before this Court, in W.P.No.2609 of 1984, challenging the vires of Sections 5 and 7 of the Act. The writ petition has been dismissed by this Court, by its order, dated 25.10.1993, following its earlier judgments of this Court, leaving it open to the petitioners, in the said writ petition, to agitate their rights for the enhancement of rent, in respect of the property concerned, by way of separate proceedings. Thereafter, the second and the third respondents had filed another writ petition, before this Court, in W.P.No.34113 of 2003, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent Corporation therein to vacate and to hand over the possession of the property leased out to the said Corporation.

5. It had also been stated that, by an order, dated 23.6.2004, this Court had directed the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-, per month, towards the use and occupation of the property in question, by the said Corporation, from 1.1.2004. However, by an order, dated 4.8.2005, the First Bench of this Court had dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner therein could avail the alternative remedy, by filing a civil suit. Thereafter, the second and the third respondents had filed a writ petition, before this Court, in W.P.No.25423 of 2007, praying for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent therein, to cancel the ‘no objection certificate’ issued to the Corporation, in respect of the property, comprised in Survey No.1285 Part, in Chintadaripet, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai, and to direct the Explosive Safety Organisation to cancel the Explosive Licence, granted in favour of the Corporation.

6. It had also been stated that, by an order, dated 19.2.2010, the writ petition has been disposed of, by this Court, directing the first respondent in the said writ petition, to consider the representation of the second and the third respondents, dated 10.5.2006 and 1.2.2007 and to pass an order, on merits and in accordance with law, and to decide as to whether the Corporation is