W.P.(C) No.4694/2011

Page 1 of 8

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

W.P.(C) No. 4694/2011

AND

CM No. 9529/2011

CM No. 12462/2011 and

CM No. 11963/2011

M/S PRADEEP OIL CORPORATION

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. V.K. Gupta & Mr. Jayant

Nath, Senior Advocates, with

Mr.B.C. Pandey, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

1.

2.

3. Whether the Reporters of local

papers may be allowed to see

the judgment?

To be referred to Reporter or

not?

Whether the judgment should

be reported in the Digest?

No.

SUNIL GAUR, J.

1.

The relief sought in this writ petition is of quashing of

Notice dated 27.12.2010, which terminates the license of

the petitioner in the premises in question and to restrain

the respondent from dispossessing the petitioner from the

premises at 13, Rohtak Road, Shakurbasti, Delhi and to

prohibit the respondent from carrying out any demolition

therein.

2011:DHC:5649

W.P.(C) No.4694/2011

Page 2 of 8

2.

Aforesaid impugned Notice of 27.12.2010 terminates

the License Deeds dated 15.03.1975 and 03.01.1978 by

virtue of which the petitioner was maintaining depot for

storage of oil products etc. in the premises in question.

Pertinently Clause-9 of the aforesaid License Deeds permits

the respondent to terminate the license without assigning

any reason but after putting the licensee to 3 months’

notice.

3.

Challenge to the aforesaid impugned Notice of

27.12.2010 (Annexure P-6) is laid in this petition on the

ground that it is illegal, wholly arbitrary and without any

basis whatsoever, as the petitioner has not violated any

terms of the Memorandum of Agreement of 03.01.1978

(Annexure P-2), which in fact is not a License Deed but is a

Lease Deed and to assert so, petitioner places reliance

upon a decision of the Apex Court in ‘M/S Pradeep Oil

Corporation Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi &

Anr.’, rendered on 06.04.2011 (Annexure P-7).

4.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent

without initiating ejectment proceedings, on 06.07.2011 in

most arbitrary and illegal manner had proceeded to forcibly

evict the petitioner from the premises in question and so,

the respondent ought to be restrained from dispossessing

the petitioner and to carry out any demolition in the

premises in question.

5.

To controvert the afore-noted assertion of the

petitioner, respondent in the counter affidavit had relied

upon its Joint Note of 06.07.2011 (Annexure R-10) which

discloses that the demolition at the premises in question, in

possession of the petitioner, was peacefully completed by

2011:DHC:5649

W.P.(C) No.4694/2011

Page 3 of 8

the team of the respondent in the presence of the local

police and no material of the occupant had been

confiscated. It

was

categorically maintained by

the

respondent that the impugned Notice of 27.12.2010 was

not replied to by the petitioner and the premises in

question was found to be in possession of the tenants of the

petitioner, who had peacefully handed over its vacant

possession to the respondent on 06.07.2011 and in terms

of Clause– 9 of the License Deeds, respondent was well

within its rights to terminate the License Deeds in question

and to pull down petitioner’s steel structures erected

therein, but the same have not been dismantled though the

respondent has a right to remove them at the cost and

expenses of the petitioner.

6.

While denying that the petitioner had been evicted

from the premises in question without following the due

process of law, respondent relied upon on the order of

25.11.2010 in W.P.(C) No. 8071/2008, ‘Union Of India vs.

M/S

Pradeep

Oil

Corporation’,

which

was

the

culmination of the earlier round of the litigation and in the

said order, liberty was granted to the respondent to

terminate the license of the petitioner herein, in acc