HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18093/2021

Balbir Kumar Dhaka S/o Abhimanyu Dhaka, Aged About 62

Years, M/s Choudhary Fertilizers (P) Ltd., R/o 10, New Mandi,

Hanumangarh Junction (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Magistrate,

Jaipur.

2.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Marketing

Division), Registered Office At 17, Jamshedji Tata Road,

Mumbai-400020 Through The Executive Director.

3.

The Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Tel Bhawan, Sahakar Marg,

Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4.

M/s J.s. Filling Station, Riico Industrial Area, Bindayaka,

Jaipur Through Its Proprietor/director.

5.

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment

Corporation Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, Udhyog

Bhawan, Tilak Marg Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Shreedhar Purohit (through VC)

For Respondent(s)

:

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

14/01/2022

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has

purchased the property held by J.S. Filling Station, RIICO

Industrial Area, Bindayaka, Jaipur in an open auction held by the

Debt Recovery Tribunal whereafter, lease deed had been executed

in petitioner's favour and despite this, respondent-Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Ltd. which was operating petrol pump on

(2 of 2)

[CW-18093/2021]

the said land has not handed over the possession of the land on

which the petrol pump is existing/operating and has been paying

cheques of monthly lease amount to the petitioner (which the

petitioner refused to accept).

2.

Mr. Shreedhar Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner

argues that it is the duty of the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Ltd. to hand over the possession of the land after

removing the petrol pump or else they may be directed to permit

the petitioner to operate the petrol pump. It is also prayed that

the respondent-HPCL be directed to pay mesne profit to the tune

of Rs.68,50,000/- calculated at the rate of 50,000/ per month.

3.

In the opinion of this Court, writ petition for the relief

claimed is not maintainable.

4.

The petitioner is required to approach the competent

authority-Civil Court or Debt Recovery Tribunal for his remedies.

5.

The writ petition is hereby dismissed.

6.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

46-Taruna/-