IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOS.127,128,129,135,136,137,138, 140,142,143,146,147,148,151,152,153,154, 159,160,162,167,168,169,170,171,174, 175,178,179,180,181,182,183,184, 185,187,188,194,195,202,205 AND 213 OF 2008 DATED: 09-07-2014 W.A. No.127 of 2008:
Between:
K. Vivekananda … Appellant And Union of India represented by its Secretary, Petroleum and Natural Gas and another … Respondents AND BATCH (TOTAL 42 CASES) THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOS.127,128,129,135,136,137,138, 140,142,143,146,147,148,151,152,153,154, 159,160,162,167,168,169,170,171,174, 175,178,179,180,181,182,183,184, 185,187,188,194,195,202,205 AND 213 OF 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) These appeals were directed against the common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 18-01-2008 dismissing the writ petitions. The prayer in W.P. No.5351 of 2007, which is more or less identical to those in the other writ petitions in the batch, is set out:
“Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not applying the policy dated 08-10-2002 in ref. Policy/MDPM NO.319/02 in respect of the retail outlet situated at Karlapalem Village, Kotanandaipalem Panchayat, Bapatla SRO, Narasaraopet Registration District vide village demarcation NO.278 and further seeking to apply the revised policy of the 1st respondent dated 06-09-2006 regarding the appointment of regular dealer for the said outlet as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power, violative of Fundamental Right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the policy of the 1st respondent dated 08-10-2002 and consequently direct the respondents to adhere to the policy dated 08-10-2002 by way of appointing me or my nominee as dealer in respect of the aforesaid retail outlet.”
2. It is thus clear that a policy decision was taken by the first respondent/Ministry of Petroleum, Oil & Natural Gas. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.5228 of 2013 arising out of SLP(C) No.5849 of 2008 and batch in the case of Mohd. Jamal vs. Union of India, decided on 08-07-2013, considered identical issues and ruled as follows:
“We are inclined to hold that the doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, as canvassed on behalf of the Appellants and the Petitioners, cannot be made applicable to these cases where the leases have been granted by the land owners on definite terms and conditions, without any indication that the same were being entered into on a mutual understanding between the parties that these would be temporary arrangements, till the earlier policy was restored and the claim of the land owners for grant of dealership could be considered afresh. On the other hand, although, the nominees of the lessors were almost in all cases appointed as the M&H Contractors, that in itself cannot, in our view, convert any claim of the land owner for grant of a permanent dealership. As has been indicated hereinbefore, even the M&H Contractor had to submit an affidavit to the effect that he did not have and would not have any claim to the dealership of the retail outlet and that he would not also obstruct the making over possession of the retail outlet to the Oil Company, as and when called upon to do so. The decisions cited on behalf of the Appellants/Petitioners, are not, therefore, relevant for a decision in these cases. Although, the Appeals have been filed on account of the denial to the land owners of the grant of dealership in respect of the lands demised by them to the Oil Companies, the entire focus has shifted to COCO outlets on account of the fresh lease agreements entered into by the Appellants with the Oil Companies which has had the effect of obliterating the claim of the land owners made separately under earlier lease agreements. The claims of the Appellants/Petitioners in the present batch of matters have to be treated on the basis of the agreements subsequently entered into by the Oil Companies, as submitted by the learned Attorney General.”
3. We find that the above decision is squarely applicable to this batch of cases. Some of the learned counsel for the appellants have not disputed the applicability of the above decision. The ratio of above decision clearly shows policy decision of the Government which cannot be interfered by the Court. We therefore hold that the issues involved in all these matters are covered by the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as policy decision is sought to be enforced and it cannot be enforced by the Court of law.
4. These writ appeals are accordingly dismissed and the impugned common order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed. The interim orders granted, if any, in these matters are vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 09-07-2014 Svv