Writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate remedy for resolving disputed questions of fact, specifically where the interpretation of lease terms and the determination of the legal expiration of a contract are contested between private parties.

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“ … to grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 6 in not considering the representation/notices of the petitioners dated 24.06.2024 and 18.02.2024 and respondent Nos.4 to 6 in not vacating the premises bearing Plot No.242 and 243, in Sy.No.216 and 217 admeasuring to an extent of 1497.91 Sq.yards situated at Kushaiguda, Keesara Mandal,Medchal Malkajgiri District, despite expiry of lease 16.02.2024 and continuing to run the retail outlet over the said property without lawful possession as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded part form being violative of Article 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently, to direct the respondent Nos.4 to 7 to vacate the premises bearing Plot No. 242 and 243 in Sy.No.216 and 217 admeasuring to an extent of 1497.91 Sq.yards situated at Kushaiguda,Keesara Mandal,Medchal-Mlakajgiri District and handover the peaceful possession of the premises to petitioners herein and …..”

2. Heard Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. D. Pallavi, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondent No.3, Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel for IOCL appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and Sri K. Suyodh Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.7. Perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they are the absolute owners of land admeasuring 1497.91 Sq.Yds., situated in Plot No.242 and 243, in Sy.Nos.216 and 217, Kushaiguda, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. In the year 2004, respondent No.7 B. Narsimhulu approached the petitioners and obtained the subject property on lease vide Lease Deed bearing document No.1090 of 2004, dated 20.02.2004. According to the petitioners, as per said Lease Deed, the subject property was leased to respondent No.7 for a period of 20 years which could be extended by additional period of 5 years subject to mutual terms and conditions acceptable. The respondent No.7 entered into a sub-lease with respondent No.4 vide Lease Deed document bearing No.4625 of 2004, dated 26.07.2004. According to the petitioners, though the lease between the petitioners and respondent No.7 was having a lease period of 20 years, the sub-lease between respondent No.7 and respondent No.4 dated 26.07.2004 was for a period of 25 years which was renewable for a period of 4 years 6 months. According to the petitioners, the 20 years lease period expired on 19.02.2024 and thereafter, respondent No.7 and sub-lessee/respondent No.4 have no right to be in occupation of the subject premises. Therefore, the petitioners addressed legal notice dated 15.02.2024 to respondent No.7 calling upon him to vacate the subject premises. The respondent No.7 issued reply notice dated 07.03.2024 contending that the lease has not expired and claims its term up to the year 2029. The petitioners addressed a letter dated 18.02.2024 to respondent Nos.2 to 6 bringing to their notice the expiry of lease and requested them not to extend the licenses. Pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioners, the respondent No.2 issued notice dated 10.07.2024 to respondent corporation to show cause as to why license should not be cancelled. Further, it is pleaded that as per Circulation Instructions of Explosives Department dated 26.12.2023 in P-13033/6/2021-Explosive-