1 APHC010136722026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7213/2026 Between: 1. G Radha, W/o Srinivasa Reddy, Aged about 55 years, R/o Ward No.18, Tirupati, Proprietor of M/s Vishnu Padmavathi Reliable agencies, Sy.No.494/3, 496/1, Ward no.18, Tirupati - 517507 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of AP, Rep. By its Principal Secretary Food and Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District - 522238 2. The Joint Collector, Tirupati District, Collectorate Office, Tirupati - 517503 3. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh State office, HPC road, Fathebagh, Kukatpalli Industrial Estate, Hyderabad - 500018 rep. By its state head, 4. The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian oil corporation ltd., 5 divisional office, D. No. 8-115/1, M.M.Complex, R.C.Road, Royal Nagar, Tirupati - 517501 5. P Amaravathi, W/o Lakshmi Narayana, Aged about 65 years, R/o D.No.18-3-62/28, Santhi nagar, Khadi colony, Tirupati - 517501 6. S Prakash, S/O Venkata Ramaiah, Aged About 60 Years, R/O 18-3- 62a/31, Shanthi Nagar, Khadi Colony, Tirupati – 517501 2 7. S Subbanna Subba Reddy, S/O Chenga Reddy, Aged About 99 Years, R/O 2-144/3, 1st Floor, Sri Lakshmi Nagar, Behind New Balaji Colony, Tirupati - 517502 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction one more particularly in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 herein in issuing Order dated 07-03-2026 (Served on 11-03-2026) in D. Dis. (D 1) / 191/20 18 cancelling Petitioner's B-Form License - License No. 12/TPT(U)/2012-IOCL in DI/ 1085/2010 dated 03-05-2012 for her petrol bunk and the NOC in respect of her Petrol Bunk by ignoring the provisions of A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of supplies) Order 1980 and erroneous application of Rule 152 of Petroleum Rules, 2002 as being arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order dated 07- 03-2026 (Served on 11-03-2026) in D.Dis.(D1)/191/2018 pending disposal of this Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A PRABHAKAR SARMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P HEMACHANDRA 2. SAI SANJAY SURANENI 3. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES RESERVED ON: 18.03.2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 08.05.2026 UPLOADED ON: 08.05.2026 3 The Court made the following order: The case of the petitioner is that, she is the dealer of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) and running a petrol bunk in the name and style of M/s Vishnu Padmavathi Reliable Agencies at Tirupati. The IBP Company subsequently merged with IOCL and the petitioner had entered into dealership agreement on 14.04.2003 for a period of 15 years. As per the said agreement, the petitioner is authorized to sell petrol and diesel, as its retail dealer, in a land to an extent of 836.36 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.494/3 and 496/1. She is supposed to pay the royalty as determined in the agreement and the agreement is renewable for successive periods of 5 years. 2. The further case of the petitioner is that, she has been running the said retail outlet by renewing dealership from time to time and that the said retail outlet is her primary livelihood supporting 25 employees who are dependent on her. It was her further case that, she holds B-Form License issued under Clause 3(3) of the A.P.Petroleum Products (Licensing and regulation of supplies) order, 1980 and NOC issued under Petroleum Rules, 2002 and by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.17 dated 21.11.2016, the B-form License issued to her is valid for life time. 3. It is her further case that, respondent nos.5 & 6 herein filed a complaint/representation before the Joint Collector seeking cancellation of the said B-Form license and NOC issued to the petitioner on the alleged ground that they are the land owners of the subject land (where the petrol bunk is situated) and they have leased it to the 7th respondent herein (petitioner‟s 4 father-in-law) on 05.12.2002 for a period of 16 years which expired on 04-12- 2018 and that there is no further extension of lease. The further allegation of the respondent nos.5 & 6 herein in the said complaint/representation is that, since the lease between them and the 7th respondent has allegedly expired, the lease agreement between the IOCL and the 7th respondent is invalid. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that, there are civil disputes pending between the respondent nos.5 & 6 herein and the IOCL. IOCL has filed a suit vide O.S.No.542 of 2018 and O.S.No.919 of 2019 against the respondent nos.5 & 6 herein and pursuant to the orders dated 09.04.2025 in I.A.No.161 of 2023 in O.S.No.542 of 2018, the IOCL is depositing rents in the court of learned V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati. The petitioner also filed suit vide O.S.No.48 of 2018 against the 7th respondent herein. 5. When the petitioner‟s B-Form License and NOC in respect of the subject petrol bunk was sought to be cancelled in violation of law, at the instance of respondent nos.5 & 6 herein, she filed W.P.No.1635 of 2019 challenging the show cause notice issued by the District Supply Officer, which was disposed of by this court on 17.07.2025 directing the Joint Collector to issue fresh notice to the petitioner and afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Inspite of submitting counter and written explanations, the Joint Collector (2nd respondent herein) has cancelled the B-Form License and NOC of the petitioner in respect of the subject petrol bunk on 07.03.2026. The District Supply Officer has served the copy of the said order on 11.03.2026 on 5 the petitioner‟s counsel who was appearing before the Joint collector, as the contempt case against the present Joint collector is listed on13.03.2026. 6. Challenging the orders issued by the 2nd respondent vide D.Dis.(D1)/191/2018 dated 07.03.2026 (served on 11.03.2026) whereby the petitioner‟s B-Form License and NOC in respect of the subject petrol bunk is cancelled, the present writ petition is filed. 7. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent nos.5 and 6 and Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned standing counsel for IOCL. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the Joint Collector has exceeded his jurisdiction and gave findings on the title and possession and cancelled the B- form License and NOC issued to the petitioner herein. He further submitted that, by virtue of Rule 150 & 152 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 (for short „the Rules‟), the Joint collector is not at all a competent authority to cancel the NOC. He further submitted that, the B-form license is governed by the A.P.Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order 1980 (for short, „order, 1980‟) and the grounds for cancellation of B-form license are specifically enumerated in the Clauses 28 and 29 of order, 1980. The Joint Collector without referring to the said clauses, which are essential, cancelled the B-form license and did not even state the reason for cancellation and under which clause he has cancelled the B-form License. He further submitted 6 that, the land owners (respondent nos.5 & 6) have not filed any suit before the competent civil court, only the IOCL has filed the suit against them wherein the IOCL is depositing rents in the court of learned V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati. He further submitted that, in C.Albert Morris Vs K.Chandrasekharan and others1 , the Apex court has held that the scope of the NOC is only as regards the location of the land and the suitability of the land to store petroleum products and that the Joint collector cannot look into the nature of possession or title. The Joint Collector while dealing with NOC shall only look at whether the location is geographically and topographically suitable for storing petroleum or not, but not the title or nature of rights relating to the property. Hence, the alleged expiry of lease is not a ground for cancellation of NOC. As such, the impugned order of the Joint Collector dated 07.03.2026 wherein the petitioner‟s B-Form License and NOC in respect of the subject petrol bunk is cancelled is unsustainable and if the same is not set aside, the petitioner, having invested huge amounts, will be put to suffer irreparable loss and hardship and accordingly prayed to allow the writ petition. 9. On the other hand, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent nos.5 and 6 has drawn the attention of this court to the Proforma to the Rule 144 of Rules, particularly 1(a) and submitted that the possession of the site by the applicant should be lawful from land owner or lease holder for developing premises under these rules for storage of 1 (2006) 1 SCC 228 7 petroleum products. He further contended that, respondent nos.5 & 6 are the absolute owners of the subject land and they have leased it to the 7th respondent herein on 05.12.2002 for a period of 16 years which has expired on 04-12-2018 and that there is no further extension of lease. The 7th respondent had sub-leased the premises to the IOCL and the petitioner, being the dealer of the IOCL, is running a petrol bunk in the subject premises. He further submitted that, since the lease between respondent nos.5 & 6 and the 7th respondent has allegedly expired, the lease agreement between the IOCL and the 7th respondent is invalid, as such the lessee has no right to continue business in the subject premises. He further submitted that, inspite of making requests, the petitioner did not vacate the premises, as such the respondent nos.5 & 6 have approached the Joint Collector bringing it to his notice that the petitioner has no right to use the subject premises, as such the petitioner cannot store the petroleum products and continue the retail outlet. He further contended that, by virtue of Rule 150 of the Rules, if the licensee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum, the NOC granted under Rule 144 shall be cancelled after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the licensee. Since the lease has been expired, the petitioner is seized to have any right to use the land; as such the Joint Collector has rightly cancelled the B-form license and NOC of the petitioner by giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner wherein the petitioner has participated in the enquiry and submitted her written submissions. Hence, no grounds are raised warranting the 8 interference of this court and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition being meritless. 10. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the license should be cancelled once the licensee is evicted from the site and until the suit filed by petitioner is concluded, her possession remains lawful and valid and in the meanwhile, the NOC and B-Form license cannot be cancelled and accordingly prayed to set aside the impugned cancellation orders. 11. Learned Standing counsel for the IOCL submitted that, the IOCL has taken lease from the 7th respondent herein and given dealership to the petitioner to run the retail outlet. He further submitted that, IOCL has filed a suit vide O.S.No.542 of 2018 and O.S.No.919 of 2019 against the respondent nos.5 & 6 herein and pursuant to the orders dated 09.04.2025 in I.A.No.161 of 2023 in O.S.No.542 of 2018, the IOCL is depositing rents in the court of learned V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati. He further submitted that, unless they are evicted from the subject site, the authorities cannot deny the petitioner to run the petrol outlet. 12. To the said submissions, learned senior counsel submitted that, by virtue of Rule 153 (1) of the Petroleum rules, 1976 the word „right‟ only means a legal right to continue on the land and that the petitioner herein has lost the legal right by virtue of expiry of the lease and though she is in the possession of the land, it cannot be termed as legal possession or lawful possession. 9 13. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. 14. The main grounds raised by the petitioner while impugning the cancellation orders dated 07.03.2026 are that the Joint Collector is not at all a competent authority to cancel the NOC and by virtue of judgment referred supra 1, the Joint Collector, while dealing with NOC, shall only look at whether the location is geographically and topographically suitable for storing petroleum or not, but not the title or nature of rights relating to the property and that the alleged expiry of lease is not a ground for cancellation of NOC. 15. Before discussing the factual aspects, it is appropriate to examine the concept of NOC under Rule 144 of Rules. Chapter VII of the Rules deals with the licenses. Rule 144 envisages NOC, which is extracted hereunder for better understanding: “144. No-objection certificate:- (1) Where the licensing authority is the Chief Controller or the Controller, as the case may be, an applicant for a new license other than a license in Form III, XI, XVII, XVIII or XIX shall apply to the District Authority with two copies of the site-plan showing the location of the premises proposed to be licensed for a certificate to the effect that there is no objection to the applicant receiving a licence for the site proposed and the District Authority shall, if he sees no objection, grant such certificate to the applicant who shall forward it to the licensing authority with his application in Form IX. (2) Every certificate issued by the District Authority under sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of the plan of the proposed site duly endorsed by him under his official seal. (3) The Chief Controller or the Controller, as the case may be, may refer an application not accompanied by certificate granted under sub-rule(1) to the District Authority for his observations. (4) If the District Authority, either on a reference being made to him or otherwise, intimates, to the Chief Controller or the Controller, as the case may be, that any licence which has been applied for should not, in his opinion, be 10 granted, such licence shall not be issued without the sanction of the Central Government. (5) The District Authority shall complete his inquiry for issuing NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE (NOC) under sub-rule (1) and shall complete the action for issue or refusal of the NOC, as the case may be, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of application by him.” 16. The proforma prescribed under Rule 144 of the Rules reads thus: Pro forma No Objection Certificate [See Rule 144] No………. Date………… Subject: No objection certificate With reference to the application No……….. dated …………. Submitted by…………… and in pursuance of Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, there is no objection for granting licence under the Petroleum Rules, 2002 to Shri/Smt./M/s.………… address ……………. For storage of petroleum products in their premises at Survey No…………./Gat No……………./Khasra No……………. Plot No…………..Village …………….. Taluka / Tehsil- …………. District …………. State…………………………….. as shown in the site plan duly endorsed and enclosed herewith. (1) The following particulars have been considered while issuing this no objection certificate, that (a) possession of the site by the applicant is lawful and authorization from land owner or lease holder for developing premises under these rules for storage of petroleum products; (b) interest of public, specially the facilities like schools, hospitals or proximity to places of public assembly and the mitigating measures, if any, is provided; (c) traffic density and impact on traffic; (d) conformity of proposal to the local or area development planning; (e) accessibility of the site to fire tenders in case of emergency and preparedness of fire services for combating the emergencies; (f) genuineness of purpose. (g) Any other matter pertinent to public safety; Signature of the district authority issuing no objection certificate with his office seal (in towns having a Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner of Police and for any other place the District Magistrate) Note. – The licensing authority shall accept the no objection certificate within a period of three years from the date of its issue for considering grant of licence. 17. A careful perusal of the language employed in the Rule 144 along with proforma would discern that „No Objection Certificate‟ is needed to the applicant, for getting a license, for the site proposed for storing the 11 product. While granting NOC, as per the proforma, the authority has to consider whether the possession of the site by the applicant is lawful and has authorization of the land owner or lease holder for developing the premises; interest of the public, specially the facilities like schools, hospitals or proximity to places of public assembly and the mitigating and preparedness of fire services for combating the emergencies; genuineness of purpose and any other pertinent to public safety. 18. Rule 150 of the Rules provides the circumstances under which a No Objection Certificate (NOC) may be cancelled which reads as follows: 150. Cancellation of no objection certificate: (1) A no objection certificate granted under rule 144 shall be liable to be cancelled by the District Authority or the State Government, if the District Authority or the State Government is satisfied that the licensee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum: Provided that before cancelling a no objection certificate, the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) A District Authority or a State Government cancelling a no objection certificate shall record, in writing, the reasons for such cancellation and shall immediately furnish to the licensee and to the licensing authority concerned, a copy of the order cancelling the no objection certificate. 19. Further, Rule 152 of the Rules, deals with the suspension and cancellation of the license, which reads thus: 152. Suspension and cancellation of license: (1) Every license granted under these rules shall- (i) stand cancelled, if the licensee ceases to have any right to the site for storing petroleum; 12 (ii) stand cancelled, if the no objection certificate is cancelled by the District Authority or the State Government in accordance with sub-rule (1) of rule 150; (iii) be liable to be suspended or cancelled by an order of the licensing authority for any contravention of the Act or of any rule thereunder or of any condition contained in such license, or by order of the Central Government, if it is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for doing so: Provided that-(a) before suspending or cancelling a license under this rule, the holder of the license shall be given an opportunity of being heard; (b)the maximum period of suspension shall not exceed three months; and (c)the suspension of a license shall not debar the holder of the license from applying for its renewal in accordance with the provisions of rule 148. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule(1), an opportunity of being heard may not be given to the holder of a license before his licence is suspended or cancelled in cases- (a)where the license is suspended by a licensing authority as an interim measure for violation of any of the provisions of the Act or these rules, or of any conditions contained in such license and in his opinion such violation is likely to cause imminent danger to the public: Provided that where a license is so suspended, the licensing authority shall give the holder of the license an opportunity of being heard before the order of suspension is confirmed; or (b)where the license is suspended or cancelled by the Central Government, if that Government considers that in the public interest or in the interest of the security of the State, such opportunity should not be given. (3) A licensing authority or the Central Government suspending or cancelling a license under sub-rule (1), shall record its reason for so doing in writing. 20. A combined reading of Rules 150 and 152 makes it clear that, both the District Authority and the State Government are empowered to cancel the NOC as well as B-Form License. The consistent use of the expression „ceased to have any right‟ in both the Rules indicates that even after the issuance of the NOC and B-Form License, if the licensee 13 no longer possess any lawful right to use the site, the District Authority or the State Government shall cancel the license and NOC. 21. In C.Albert Morris (supra 1), the Apex court had held that, any right which the dealer has over his site was the right which he had acquired in terms of the lease. When that lease expired and when the landlord declined to renew the same and also called upon the erstwhile tenant to surrender possession, the erstwhile lessee could no longer assert that he had any right to the site. His continued occupation of something which he had no right to occupy cannot be regarded as source of a right to the land of which he himself was not in lawful possession. 22. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of M.C. Chockalingam & Ors. Vs. V.Manickavasagam & Ors2, litigious possession cannot be regarded as lawful possession. 23. It is well settled that lawful possession is not litigious possession and must have some foundation in a legal right to possess the property which cannot be equated with a temporary right to enforce recovery of the property in case a person is wrongfully or forcibly dispossessed from it. Even the juridical possession is possession protected by law against wrongful dispossession but cannot per se always be equated with lawful possession. 2 1974 (1) SCC 48 14 24. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the lease period had expired on 04.12.2018. Therefore, once the lease expires, the licensee will cease right over the property and once the licensee ceases right over the property, the licensing authority can cancel the B-Form license and NOC. 25. The contention of the petitioner is that, the Joint Collector has no power to cancel the license and that the cancellation of the license can only be done if there is any violation under clause 28 and 29 of the Order, 1980. Even though the said contention is considerable, Rule 150 and 152 of the Rules, makes it totally misconceived since the lease was expired way back in the year 2018 and it was not extended further wherein the petitioner ceases right over the property. 26. Coming to the jurisdiction point raised by the petitioner, it is apt to mention here the 2 (x) & (xi) of Chapter I of the Rules, 2002 which reads thus: (x)"District Authority" means- (a) in towns having a Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner of Police; (b) in any other place, the District Magistrate; (xi)”District Magistrate” means and includes an Additional District Magistrate and in the States of Punjab & Haryana and in the Karaikal, Mahe and Yenam areas of Union Territory of Pondicherry, also included a Sub-divisional Magistrate; 15 27. In view of said provision, it is clear that, the Additional District Magistrate can be termed as District Authority and the District Authority can cancel the NOC and the license. In the present case, the impugned order was passed by the 2nd respondent who is Joint Collector and also Additional District Magistrate (F.A.C.), Tirupathi District. Therefore, by virtue of 2 (x) & (xi) of Chapter I of the Rules, 2002, the 2nd respondent is competent to pass the impugned order. In view of the same, the contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction is also misconceived. Therefore, this court finds no good reason to interfere with the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent dated 07.03.2026 and for the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS