(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) All these three writ appeals have been brought forth challenging the interim orders of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2006 in W.P.NO.36028 of 2006 dated 5.12.2006.
2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the respondent and the grounds of appeal also looked into along with the order under challenge.
3. It is not in controversy that a writ petition was brought forth challenging the order made by the appellant/respondent whereby the petitioner's dealership licence was cancelled by order dated 22.9.2006. An interim order was granted on 26.9.2006 by this Court whereby the status quo was ordered to be maintained. While the matter stood thus, an order was passed by the appellant herein dated 27.9.2006 whereby the storage licence of the respondent/petitioner was cancelled . Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.39311 of 2006. By an interim order dated 17.10.2006, the operation of the order dated 27.9.2006 was stayed. Apart from the above, by order dated 13.11.2006, the interim order already granted was extended. Though the interim order continued, the supply has not been received. Hence the writ petitioner filed M.P.No.3 of 2006 in W.P.No.36028 of 2006 seeking a direction directing the appellant/respondent to supply the petroleum products to the writ petitioner as per their requirements, pending disposal of the writ petition.
4. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the submissions made by both sides, has passed an order in M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2006 in W.P.No. 36028 of 2006 and M.P.No.2 of 2006 in W.P.No.39311 OF 2006 permitting the writ petitioner in the writ petition to sell 4000 litres of petroleum products stored by the writ petitioner. Insofar as the future supply was concerned, writ petitioner has to submit a proposal and it has to be considered by the appellant/respondent for an amicable settlement with regard to the issue in question. Aggrieved over the same, these writ appeals have been brought forth.
5. The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant is that originally when the order of status quo was made on 26.9.2006, the Court did not take into consideration or appraise the circumstances prevailed and apart from that now permission has been granted to the writ petitioner to sell 4000 litres of petroleum products stored by him., so long as a request was made for supply of petroleum products and the same was rejected by the appellant Corporation on 26.9.2006, how the writ petitioner hold 4000 litres of petrol and hence such a permission should not have been granted. Under such circumstances, the orders of the learned Single Judge has got to be set aside.
6. The court heard the learned counsel for the respondent.
7. After hearing the submissions made by both sides and also after looking into the materials available on record, the Court is of the considered opinion that all these writ appeals require an order of dismissal. As stated above, the writ petitioner, aggrieved over the cancellation of the dealership, filed writ petition whereby the interim order of status quo was made on 26.9.2006. That would mean, the Court was satisfied as to the averments made and thought it fit that the status quo to be maintained till the disposal of the main issue of the writ petition. Further, while such an order passed on 26.9.2006, an order came to be passed by the appellant/respondent on the very next day i.e. on 27.9.2006. Learned counsel for the respondent herein would submit that the order came to be passed by the appellant on 27.9.2006 was nothing to do when an order that was originally passed to maintain status quo. Further, the writ petitioner has already filed a writ petition challenging the said order dated 27.9.2006 and an interim stay has been granted in the said writ petition. Now, it would be quite clear that insofar as original order which was made on 26.9.2006 to maintain status quo is to be remained undisturbed.
8. Now the main question whether the cancellation of dealership passed was proper or not, has got to be decided in the main writ appeals. Insofar as the second contention put forth by the counsel for the appellant that the permission ought not to have been granted to the writ petitioner/respondent to sell 4000 litres of petroleum products, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that now the question would not be how the respondent came into possession of 4000 litres of petroleum products and whether any separate proceedings are pending earlier in respect of the said issue. But, the issue raised in the writ petition is whether the cancellation of the dealership of licence originally made on 22.9.2006 is valid or not. Under such circumstances, no impediment could be felt by granting permission, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. This Court is unable to see any merit in the above writ appeals. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 is also dismissed.
VJY