Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 62360

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J
M/s.Kohinoor Agencies Rep. By its Proprietor Mr. L.Periyasamy – Appellant
Versus
The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives South Circle – Chennai Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) – Respondent
W.P. NOS.31412, 32726 & 34177 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. V.Raghavachari, SC, for M/s. V.S.Senthil Kumar, Mr. Mohd. Fayaz Ali
For the Respondents: Mr. T.Gowtham, SC, for M/s. R.Ramasubramaniam Raja, Mr. K.Srinivasamurthy, SPC, Mr. V.Vasanthakumar, AGP (P), Mr. V.Raghavachari, SC, for M/s.V.S.Senthil Kumar

The legal right to a site for storing petroleum is contingent upon valid title; any claim derived from a lease declared void is invalid.

Headnote:(A) Rule 150(1) and Rule 152(1) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 - Petitioners challenge cancellation of no objection certificate and license for running a petrol bunk - Court held that licensee had no legal right to the site due to transactions ruled null and void, upholding the cancellation of the licenses. (Paras 27, 28, 29, 41)

(B) Right to Site - The concept of 'Right to Site' is contingent upon the legal possession of property and cannot be claimed if the basis of possession is a lease declared null and void. (Paras 30, 41)

Facts of the case:
The licensee has operated a petrol bunk under lease agreements; however, the lessor's ownership of the property was declared void, negating any legal claim to the 'Right to Site'. (Paras 3, 32)

Findings of Court:
The petitioners failed to demonstrate legal possession or right over the property, resulting in the valid cancellation of their licenses. (Paras 47, 48)

Issues: The main issues included whether the licensee retained the 'Right to Site' and the validity of the cancellation orders based on this right. (Paras 27-29)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a party cannot claim rights over property if the foundation of those rights is declared null; mere possession without a valid title is insufficient. (Paras 41, 47)

Result: All writ petitions are dismissed.

Table of Content
1. licensee's continuous possession (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. lack of proper procedure in prior hearings (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. impugned order's basis on mechanical reasoning (Para 15 , 16 , 18 , 19)
4. licensing authority's interpretation of ownership (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. right to site contingent on valid lease (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
6. nullification of lease due to invalid title (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
7. lack of evidence results in license cancellation (Para 42 , 44 , 45 , 46)
8. dismissal of writ petitions affirmed (Para 49)

COMMON ORDER

While W.P. No.31412 has been filed by the petitioner/lessee, W.P. No.34177 of 2025 has been filed by the Indian Oil Corporation challenging the impugned order of cancellation of the licence passed by the 1^st respondent and W.P. No.32726/2025 has been filed by the petitioner/lessee challenging the cancellation of No Objection Certificate granted by the 3^rd respondent therein.

2. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner in W.P. Nos.31412 & 32726/2025 is referred to as ‘licensee’, the petitioner in W.P. No.34177/2025 is referred to as ‘IOCL’ and the 4^th respondent in W.P. No.31412 & 32726/2025, who is the 2^nd respondent in W.P. No.34177/2025 shall be referred to as the ‘4^th respondent’.

3. The facts in issue in all the writ petitions not being countered by the respective petitioners, in short the facts are culled out as hereunder :-

The licensee took the property belonging to one I.Zaheera, U.Nargees and F.Yasmin, who were minors and duly represented by their respective natural guardian on lease vide lease deed dated 01.01.1983 bearing Document No.16/1983 for a period of five years, which was subsequently renewed and the licensee has been in lease of the said property for the past 42 years and is running a petrol bunk in the name and style of M/s.Kohinoor Agencies.

4. It is the further averment of the licensee that he has put in necessary infrastructure for putting up the petrol bunk as specified by the 2^nd respondent. While being so, M/s.Agate Finance purchased property vide sale deeds dated 25.02.2000 bearing Doc. Nos.159 to 164/2000 and 169 to 180/2000 on the file of the District Registrar, Madras Central, which deeds were forwarded to Puducherry. The property under lease and in which the petrol bunk of the licensee was purchased under Doc. Nos.173, 174 and 179 of 2000.

5. It is the further case of the licensee that it subsequently entered into lease deed dated 10.03.2009 with M/s.Agate Finance for a period of 25 years from 10.03.2009 to 09.03.2034. The lease deed was produced before the concerned authorities and the licence of the licensee was periodically renewed the last of such renewal being vide order dated 22.12.2022 in and by which the licence was renewed till 31.12.2027.

6. It is the further case of the licensee that the 4^th respondent had sent a representation dated 16.08.2024 to the 1^st respondent requesting to take appropriate action against the licensor and the licensee as the licensee has no right over the site for being granted a renewal of licence. Being aggrieved by the said representation and apprehending coercive action by the 1^st respondent, the licensee preferred W.P. No.35727/2024 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2025.

7. It is the further case of the licensee that apart from the representation dated 16.8.2024, the 4^th respondent has sent a representation dated 10.03.2025 to the 3^rd respondent in W.P. No.31412/2025 to cancel the ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued to the licensee for running the petrol bunk and enquiry in the said matter is pending.

8. It is the further averment of the licensee that only on reading the representation, the litigations between the 4^th respondent and M/s.Agate Finance came to light and the licensee was not admittedly a party to the proceedings. It is the further averment of the licensee that even during the litigation neither the 4^th respondent nor M/s.Agate Finance had qu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 62360

The legal right to a site for storing petroleum is contingent upon valid title; any claim derived from a lease declared void is invalid.

Cases Referred (3)