HC directs BPCL to handover possession of property

The Madras High Court has directed the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited to handover possession of a property in Tiruvallur district which was leased to it for over four decades.
Justice S Vaidyanathan also imposed a cost of Rs two lakh on the BPCL.
The judge recently allowed a plea by one R Sivaprakasam eeking a direction to the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle Office, Chennai, not to renew the Explosives License to BPCL and to cancel it.
The court is of the view that the firm has to handover possession of the property "within 45 days from the date on which a copy of this order is made ready."

"Otherwise, it is open to the writ petitioner to enter the premises and take possession of the property, with the help of the jurisdictional police," the judge said.
The property is located on Panchetty road at Ponneri in Tiruvallur district.

The petitioner submitted that the property belonged to his grandfather and he had leased it out to Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India for 20 years from October 1, 1963 and rent was fixed at Rs.25 per month.
In 1976, the company got nationalised and became a government undertaking that was later renamed as Bharat Refineries, and thereafter BPCL. It continued as lessee after 1976 till October 1, 1983 on the same terms.

The petitioner's grandfather did not renew the lease after 1983.
After his death, the lease was renewed in 1995 as Bharat Petroleum Corporation was entitled to one more renewal of lease as per the same terms and the same period in accordance with the enactment of Bhurma Shell (Acquisition undertaking in India) Act, 1976.
The lease was then renewed for a period of 20 years for a very low rent of Rs 135 per quarter.
Further, BPCL came forward with another demand for further renewal of the lease for 30 years from October 1, 2003 on the same rent,for which the petitioner sought a monthly rent of Rs.64,000 based upon the then prevailing market value of the property vide reply notice dated September 20, 2003.

The matter led to prolonged litigations in lower courts and the firm lost the case. But in the guise of renewal of explosives licence by Explosives Department, it continued to be in the possession of the place, the petitioner said.
In his order, Justice Vaidyanathan said under the guise of extension of renewal, the firm was trying to usurp the property in question, in all probability.
"No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. Bharat Petroleum Corporation will not be entitled to any relief, as renewal is not a matter of right."

"Further, second lease is not permissible. In view of the above, as there is no renewal of Explosives licence, Bharat Petroleum Corporati on cannot continue its business in the place in occupation."
As there should be finality to the litigation, driving the writ petitioner to approach the civil court was not going to help, the judge said.
"Bharat Petroleum Corporation is a 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, which is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court."
The petitioner had written to the Explosives department not to renew the licence and also to cancel it for which the department had not responded following which the high court was approached.