Shaheed G. M. Filling Station and Zareena Akhter V. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Central Bureau of Investigation

WP(C)/3441/2023

AI Insights

The case involves two connected Writ Petitions concerning the termination of a dealership agreement between M/S Shaheed G. M. Filling Station, owned by Zareena Akhter, and the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL). The dealership was terminated following allegations of adulteration of petroleum products and other irregularities. The Petitioner challenged the termination, claiming it was unconstitutional and lacked proper procedure. The Respondent-Corporation defended the termination citing adherence to the Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG), 2005. The court found the Writ Petition not maintainable due to the existence of an arbitration clause in the dealership agreement. In a related petition, the court allowed the Petitioner to potentially sell the leased land to meet urgent medical expenses, emphasizing the need for justice and fairness in the use of the property.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 692716 (HC-SRINAGAR)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore & Anr. v. Mathew K. C., (2018) 3 SCC 85, Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v. Chhabil Das Aggarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603
• Laws Referred To: Essential Commodities Act, Petroleum Act, Petroleum Rules, Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG), 2005, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Transfer of Property Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: HAKEEM AMAN ALI; TAHIR MAJID SHAMSI; YASMEEN JAN
• Assessee Lawyers: I SOFI; SHUJA UL HAQ TANTRAY
• Keywords: Adulteration; Arbitration clause; Fundamental Right; Retail Outlet Dealership; Right to Livelihood; Show cause notice; Termination; Extraordinary remedy
• Section: 143(3); 3(7)

Judgement Text

" HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved On: 3rd of September, 2024 Pronounced On: 24th of September, 2024. OWP No. 585/2010 M/S Shaheed G. M. Filling Station, Through its proprietor, namely, Ms Zareena Akhter W/O Late Ghulam Muhammad Khan R/O Nadibal, Baramulla. … Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr I. Sofi, Advocate. V/s 1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Through its Chairman and Managing Director, With its registered and Head Office, G-9 Ali Yawar Jung Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai-51. 2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Marketing Division), Jammu Divisional Office (Retail Sales), Through Divisional Sales Manager, Jammu, 22-O/B, JDA Commercial Complex, Rail Head, Jammu, 180012 3. Central Bureau of Investigation Through Superintendent of Police, M. A. Road, Srinagar. … Respondent(s) Through: - Mr Hakeem Aman Ali, Advocate for R-1 & 2; and Mr Tahir Majid Shamsi, DSGI with Ms Yasmeen Jan, Advocate for R-3. Page 2 of 14 OWP No. 585 of 2010 c/w WP (C) No. 3441 of 2023 Clubbed with: WP (C) No. 3441/2023 Zareena Akhter, Age: 47 Years W/O Late Gh. Mohammad Khan R/O Naribal, Sopore, District Baramulla. … Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr Shuja-ul-Haq Tantray, Advocate. V/s 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum, New Delhi, India. 2. Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation, New Delhi, India. 3. Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. … Respondent(s) Through: - Mr Tahir Majid Shamsi, DSGI with Ms Yasmeena Jan, Advocate for R-1; and Mr Hakeem Aman Ali, Advocate for R-2 & 3. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE (JUDGMENT) 01. Since, both the Writ Petitions have been moved by the same Petitioner and regarding the same subject matter, both are proposed to be taken up jointly for disposal. OWP No. 585/2010: 02. The Petitioner-firm initially filed OWP No. 585/2010, seeking Writ, direction or order, including a writ in the nature of certiorari/ mandamus for quashing the Order No. JDO/R/GM dated 7th of June, 2010 issued by the Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Jammu, terminating the retail outlet dealership of the Petitioner-firm and Order No. 8 SAI/GMFS dated 1st of May, 2010 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Page 3 of 14 OWP No. 585 of 2010 c/w WP (C) No. 3441 of 2023 Jammu Divisional Office, whereby the sales and supply ordered to be sought by the Petitioner-firm have been directed to be stopped. 03. The Petitioner-firm claims to have been appointed as a dealer for the retail sale/ supply of petroleum products at Bumhama, Kupwara vide a Memorandum of Agreement dated 26th of February, 2004 drawn up by the Respondent-Corporation with the Petitioner-firm; that the retail outlet came to be set up/ established by the Petitioner-firm at Bumhama, Kupwara providing the facilities of Motor Sprit/ High Speed Diesel/ Lube/ Greases; 04. It is alleged that on 30th of April, 2010, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case against the Petitioner-firm through its Manager, Bashir Ahmad Sofi, vide FIR No. 012320100002 under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Petroleum Act and the Rules made thereunder, showing the suspected offence as “adulteration in essential commodity (HSD)” based on a source of information, resulting in a joint surprise check of the Filling Station by a team of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation, who obtained samples from the Filling Station, which were tested in the Mobile Testing Lab on spot and it was alleged that the samples failed in the test of “Density” and “Kinematic Viscosity” as the same were found adulterated as per the test report. 05. It was further alleged that after the case was registered, the Petitioner-firm was served with an order by Area Manager (RS) SS of the Respondent-Corporation on 1st of May, 2010, thereby directing the Petitioner-firm to stop the sales from the outlet and that it was also served with a show cause notice dated 5th of May, 2010 asking it to explain in respect of High Speed Diesel (HSD) samples failing in clinical test and the Tank Lorry Retention samples available at the Retail Outlet being neither labelled nor properly sealed and reference density (morning density) being also not available at the time of inspection; that based on these allegations, the Petitioner-firm was further informed that the failure of High Speed Diesel (HSD) samples in the clinical test is a source of irregularity and Page 4 of 14 OWP No. 585 of 2010 c/w WP (C) No. 3441 of 2023 merits termination as per Clause 7 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG), 2005; that the Petitioner-firm was further informed that unlabeled and improperly sealed Tank Lorry Retention Samples at the Retail Outlet was an irregularity, which attracts a fine of Rs.50,000/- as per Clause 11 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG), 2005; that the non-availability of the reference density (morning density) at the time the inspection was carried out, is a serious irregularity under the Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG), 2005 and that, as per Clause 7, penal action is termination in case of sample failure. 06. It has been further asserted by the Petitioner that the Petitioner- firm replied to the show cause notice, admitting that on 30th of April, 2010, nozzle samples of High Speed Diesel (HSD) were drawn from the outlet, however, it was denied that any sample of High Speed Diesel (HSD) was drawn from the outlet of the Petitioner; that on 30th of April, 2010 at around 03:00 PM, a group of persons with automatic weapons in their hands entered the office at the Retail Outlet, restricting the movement of the staff, whereafter, the Manager was made to sign some papers without his knowing the contents of the papers on which his signatures were obtained; that no proceedings were conducted by the team in presence of any of the employees of the Petitioner-firm; that resistance had been shown on spot, both as regards the sampling procedure and the signing of the papers, but the gunmen accompanying the team harassed the staff and it was denied that the Retail Outlet contained any adulterated High Speed Diesel (HSD); that, insofar as the allegation relating to Tank Lorry Samples not being sealed is concerned, the Respondents were informed that the stocks of seals had exhausted and requisition, in that behalf, had been made which were not received till 26th of April, 2010, when the Oil Tanker was unloaded on the said date and, therefore, the sample containers remained without seal; that with regard to non-recording of morning density, it was explained that the same had remained unrecorded in the concerned register due to oversight, however, the information regarding morning density was available, but had not been asked for. Page 5 of 14 OWP No. 585 of 2010 c/w WP (C) No. 3441 of 2023 07. The Petitioner further alleges that, after submitting the reply, no formal inquiry was held and the impugned Order dated 7th of June, 2010 came to be passed, thereby terminating the dealership of the Petitioner-firm. 08. The Petitioner has sought quashing of the orders impugned, inter alia, on the grounds that the action of the Respondents in passing the termination order was unconstitutional; that the Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG), 2005 have been framed by the Respondent- Corporation, which is a Government Company under the provisions of the Companies Act and have no statutory force nor any plenary executive power vests in the Respondent-Corporation to formulate and/ or enforce Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG) in respect of matters for which legislation has already been passed by the Legislature, as such, the Marketing Discipline Guidelines of 2005 suffer from lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Respondents; that the Respondent-Corporation qualifies as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, is subject to the constitutional limitations in the same way as the Government; that the impugned Orders state that the samples of High Speed Diesel (HSD) was taken from nozzle which failed the test and the Petitioner-firm states that the provisions of Petroleum Act, 1934 and the Petroleum Rules, 2002 make detailed provisions with regard to drawing of samples, however, no such procedure was adopted and the process of taking samples and its ultimate testing was in contravention of law and the report so obtained cannot be relied upon being unsustainable; that the Respondents, in the impugned order dated 7th of June, 2010, have based their decision on the allegations that it is the High Speed Diesel (HSD) which was found to be adulterated; and that the contradictory statements clearly demonstrate that the Respondents, for mala fide reasons, have paved a way for cancelling the dealership of the Petitioner-firm, so as to allot the same to somebody else of their choice. 09. Pursuant to notice, the Respondents filed their Reply Affidavit, asserting therein that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is an extraordinary remedy Page 6 of 14 OWP No. 585 of 2010 c/w WP (C) No. 3441 of 2023 and cannot be used for enforcement of contractual disputes and remedies, which can be resorted to on the basis of the agreement executed between the parties; that the Writ Petition is also not maintainable in view of the arbitration clause contained in the Agreement. 10. It was pleaded that the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2005 have been formulated by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India and not the Respondent-Corporation and that these guidelines are to be traced from the agreement executed between the parties; that the Petition for restoration of the dealership is not maintainable in view of the mandate of Section 14 (1) of the Specifics Relief Act, 1963, being a contract not specifically enforceable in view of the fact that the present contract was determinable in nature. It was finally prayed that the Petition be dismissed with costs. 11. Mr I. Sofi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner-M/S Shaheed G. M. Filling Station in OWP No. 585/2010, argued that the Respondents had terminated the dealership of the Petitioner-firm only on one allegation of adulteration of High Speed Diesel (HSD) and the allegation does not mean that the said fact has been proved against the dealer, as such, the termination of the dealership could not be made, hence, the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. He has further argued that despite the directions of the CBI Magistrate and the Revisional Courts, as well, the Respondent-Corporation had not sent the sample for re-testing, as prayed for by the Petitioner-firm, so as to ascertain the veracity of the test conducted by the laboratory on spot. 12. Insofar as the contention of the Respondents that there is an ‘Arbitration Clause’ in the memorandum of agreement dated 26th of February, 2004 and that the dispute is to be referred to the Arbitrator and the Writ Petition is not maintainable, Mr Sofi submitted that no such plea can be raised, at this stage, when the Writ Petition has already been admitted to hearing on 5th of March, 2012. He has further argued that it is settled law that availability of alternate remedy will not come in the way of Page 7 of 14 OWP No. 585 of 2010 c/w WP (C) No. 3441 of 2023 maintaining the Writ Petition when the Order impugned deprives a person from his/ her livelihood and it was submitted that, by virtue of the impugned Order, the Respondents have terminated the dealership of petrol pump which was the only source of livelihood of the Petitioner, as such, the Writ Petition is maintainable and cannot be dismissed on the aforesaid preliminary objection. 13. He has also argued that the Petitioner was not heard by the Respondent-Corporation before terminating her dealership and passing the impugned Order, though a show cause notice had been issued, which was replied to by the Petitioner, denying all the allegations of the Respondents so made in the show cause notice, however, the Respondents, as per the learned Counsel, without giving any weightage to the said objections and reply of the Petitioner, passed the impugned Order. It is further argued that the Respondents had, thus, not heard the Petitioner nor allowed her to prove the objections and substantiate the same, thereby acted most unfairly and arbitrarily. He has further argued that before any penal action is taken against a dealer, all cases of irregularities need to be established in terms of Note II to 6.3.5 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2005, which have been relied upon by the Respondent-Corporation and, in absence of anything having been proved against the dealer, the termination of the dealership was not a legally tenable decision. 14. On the other hand, Mr Hakeem Aman Ali, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Corporation, has argued that the Petitioner had been issued show cause notice, asking her to reply to the charge of having found the High Speed Diesel (HSD) adultered, as such, the Petitioner cannot say that she had not been heard before passing of the termination order. He has argued that the premier investigation agency of the country, i.e., the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), had conducted a joint and surprise check of the allegations of the irregularities being committed by the dealer and on testing on spot, the High Speed Diesel (HSD) was found adultered, besides other irregularities enumerated in the show cause notice and impugned Order. He has further argued that the Page 8 of 14 OWP No. 585 of 2010 c/w WP (C) No. 3441 of 2023 termination of the dealership was the only available penal action against the Petitioner, even on first irregularity in case of adulteration of High Speed Diesel (HSD) in view of Clause 6.1.1 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2005. He has argued that the Petitioner-firm could not have been allowed to do business with the adulterated supplies made by the Respondent-Corporation, awaiting the outcome of the criminal complaint pending against the accused before the trial Court, which is stated to be still pending. 15. With regard to the maintainability of the Petition, the learned Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation, in order to buttress his arguments, has relied upon a Judgment of the Supreme Court passed in a case titled “Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore & Anr. v. Mathew K. C.”, reported as “(2018) 3 SCC 85”, whereby, the Apex Court while relying on the principles laid down in a case titled “Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v. Chhabil Das Aggarwal”, reported as “(2014) 1 SCC 603”, held that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not absolute, but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law and that the normal rule is that a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be entertained, if the alternate statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well- defined exceptions as observed in Chhabil Dass Agarwal’s case (supra). 16. Mr Hakeem has further proceeded to make reference to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Chhabil Das Agarwal’s case (supra) and submitted that the Apex Court has clearly held that, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titaghur Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a Petition under Article 226 of the Page 9 of 14 OWP No. 585 of 2010 c/w WP (C) No. 3441 of 2023 Constitution, if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the Statute under which the action complained of has been taken, itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance, still holds the field and, therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a Writ Petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 17. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. 18. Clause 67 of the ‘Agreement of Dealership’ between the Petitioner and the Respondent-Corporation, which is relevant on the subject of alternate and efficacious remedy, is reproduced as under: “Any dispute or difference of any nature whatsoever or regarding any right, liability, act, omission or account of any of the parties arising out of or in relation to this agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Director (Marketing) of the Corporation of some officer of the Corporation who may be nominated by the Director Marketing.” As per the aforesaid Clause 67 of the ‘Agreement of Dealership’ between the parties, it has been clearly prescribed and provided that in case of any dispute, the matter can be resorted to arbitration, therefore, there was an alternate and efficacious remedy available to the Petitioner to resort to the arbitration, however, the Petitioner, without resorting to that remedy, has invoked the extraordinary Writ jurisdiction of this Court, which, in the light of the mandate of the Judgments of the Apex Court, as relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondent- Corporation, is not maintainable before this Court. 19. Merely that the Petition had been admitted to hearing, as argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be an impediment for this Court to go into this question of maintainability of the Writ Petition, at this stage, as well. 20. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner, in view of availability of alternate and efficacious remedy of Page 10 of 14 OWP No. 585 of 2010 c/w WP (C) No. 3441 of 2023 arbitration, is held to be not maintainable before this Court and is, accordingly, dismissed, along with the connected CM(s). Interim direction(s), if any subsisting as on date, shall stand vacated. WP (C) No. 3441/2023: 21. During the pendency of the aforesaid Petition, being OWP No. 585/2010, another Writ Petition came to be filed by Zareena Akhter, proprietor of the firm, asserting therein that she is a war-widow of L/NK Ghulam Mohammad Khan of Jammu & Kashmir Light Infantry Regimental Centre, who was killed in the year 1999 at Kargil, during the Kargil war between India and Pakistan. She had been allotted the dealership of a petroleum pump by the Government at Bumhama, District Kupwara under the policy of Operation Vijay Scheme vide letter of intent dated 26th of February, 2004 and, accordingly, a lease agreement was executed by the Petitioner on the same date; that the Petitioner installed the petrol pump at the identified site and made it operational under the name and style of M/S Shaheed G. M. Filling Station, Bumhama, Kupwara w.e.f. 25th of July, 2003 and an irrevocable Power of Attorney was executed by the Petitioner in favour of Ghulam Nabi Rather and Mohabbat Ali Khan on 25th of July, 2003, by virtue of which all the day to day affairs of the above petrol pump were assigned to those two persons; that unfortunately, on 30th of April, 2010, the Petitioner’s petrol pump was seized by the Respondents after receiving the information that adulterated petroleum products were being sold and since then the case, in this regard, is pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special Magistrate, CBI), Srinagar against the Petitioner and those two persons. 22. It was further pleaded by the Petitioner that the petrol pump was the only source of income for her family and sealing of the same for the last 13 years has forced the Petitioner and her family to lead a life of misery; that the Petitioner has been suffering from Breast Cancer, as such, immediate medical attention is required to deal with the said serious ailment for which huge amount is also required, whereas, the Petitioner has no Page 11 of 14 OWP No. 585 of 2010 c/w WP (C) No. 3441 of 2023 source of income, therefore, the Petitioner, in order to meet out the medical expenses, intends to sell the plot of land upon which the above-mentioned petrol pump was installed. Accordingly, the Petitioner through the said Writ Petition, seeks direction from this Court to the Respondent-Corporation for termination of the lease agreement, so that the Petitioner would be in a position to dispose of the said land upon which the petrol pump is installed. 23. It was alleged that the Respondents are not allowing the Petitioner to sell the plot of land upon which the above-mentioned petrol pump was installed, though it is well settled law that right to life includes right to livelihood which is a fundamental right guaranteed under the provisions laid down in the Constitution and, by not allowing the Petitioner to use the benefit of her land, the acts of the Respondents are arbitrary, unjust, unfair, unreasonable and unjustified, thereby violating the rights of the Petitioner. 24. It was further pleaded that the Petitioner had challenged the order of sealing and stoppage of supply before this Court through the medium of OWP No. 585/2010 which is pending disposal. Finally, it has been prayed that the Respondents be directed to terminate the lease agreement executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent- Corporation. 25. Pursuant to notice, the Respondent-Corporation filed Reply Affidavit, asserting therein that this Petition is not maintainable as the Petitioner has no locus standi to file the present Petition which is also barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and by virtue of Explanation 6 to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); that the Petitioner has already filed a Writ Petition bearing OWP No. 585/2010 in this Court, as such, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to split her claims and reliefs to vex the Respondents time and again for the same cause in view of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); that the present Writ Petition is also not maintainable since there exists an arbitration clause contained in Clause 67 of the dealership agreement; that the contract entered into between the Page 12 of 14 OWP No. 585 of 2010 c/w WP (C) No. 3441 of 2023 Petitioner and the Respondent-Corporation is not on statutory regulations, but on contractual obligations outlined within the agreement itself, therefore, the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable; that the Writ Petition involves highly disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into/ decided under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court. 26. It has been further stated that the Petitioner has not disclosed the true and correct facts in this Writ Petition that the Central Bureau Investigation (CBI) and the Industrial Mobile Laboratory carried out an inspection of the retail outlet on 30th of April, 2010 and the sample of High Speed Diesel (HSD) was obtained from the nozzle at the retail outlet, which did not pass the required quality standards, as such, following due process and principles of fairness, the Retail Outlet in question was terminated on 7th of June, 2010. 27. It has been further submitted that the Writ Petition for termination of lease deed is not maintainable before this Court, inasmuch as, such a relief is only available in terms of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act exclusively and that no other method is permissible. It has been further pleaded that it is settled law that if the contract between the private party and the State/ instrumentality of the State and/ or agency of the State is under the realm of a private law and there is no element of public law, the normal course for the aggrieved party is to invoke the remedies provided under ordinary civil law, rather than approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction. 28. Mr Shuja-ul-Haq Tantray, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in WP (C) No. 3441/2023, has argued that since the dealership of the Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) of the Petitioner had been terminated by the Respondent-Corporation way back in the year 2010 and the Petitioner was not allowed to operate that Outlet till now, thereby leading the Petitioner not to avail the use of the land which had been leased out to the Respondent-Corporation for purpose of setting up of the Retail Page 13 of 14 OWP No. 585 of 2010 c/w WP (C) No. 3441 of 2023 Outlet (Petrol Pump), coupled with the fact of the Petitioner being diagnosed with a life-threatening disease of Breast Cancer, the Petitioner wants her land to be released of the lease, so that she may use that said land to be sold to have money for her treatment, which is quite expensive. He has argued that since the dealership has already been terminated by the Respondent-Corporation, the Respondent-Corporation was under an obligation to utilize the leasehold rights, so that the land use for the Retail Outlet should be restored to the Petitioner, who is the rightful owner of the land. 29. Mr Hakeem Aman Ali, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Corporation, on the other hand, argued that as per the lease agreement, the land has been leased out by the Petitioner in favour of the Respondent-Corporation for a period of thirty (30) years and still that period is not over, as such, the leased land cannot be ordered to be restored to the Petitioner before the expiry of the lease period. 30. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. 31. The dealership of the Retail Outlet granted in favour of the Petitioner was revoked/ terminated in the year 2010 and since the grant of dealership as on date, the lease period has been over twenty (20) years and if the land is kept by the Respondent-Corporation at its disposal without being put to any use, the same will not be in the interests of justice. Had the Respondent-Corporation allotted this Retail Outlet to some other person, things would have been different. 32. The learned Counsel for both the parties submit that the Respondent-Corporation had not used this land or even advertised this Retail Outlet for being allotted to some other person, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, and having regard to the difficulties being faced by the Petitioner on account of her health, the Petitioner is entitled to some relief. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is even ready to sell the land to the Respondent-Corporation also Page 14 of 14 OWP No. 585 of 2010 c/w WP (C) No. 3441 of 2023 at the present market value, in case the Respondent-Corporation is interested to purchase the same, which is also a condition in the lease agreement between the parties. 33. Having regard to the whole of the gamut of the case, this Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondent-Corporation to consider the case of the Petitioner with regard to purchase of leased out land of the Petitioner for the Retail Outlet allotted to the Respondent- Corporation and, if the Respondent-Corporation is not interested to purchase the same, the Petitioner be permitted to sell the land to any other person by revoking the lease so that the landed property of the Petitioner is available to be sold free of encumbrances. The Respondent-Corporation shall proceed in the matter and take a decision in terms of the aforesaid directions expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this Judgment is made available to them. 34. Copy of this Judgment be placed across both these connected files. (M. A. CHOWDHARY) JUDGE SRINAGAR September 24th, 2024 “TAHIR” i. Whether the Judgment is speaking? Yes. ii. Whether the Judgment is reporting? Yes. Tahir Manzoor Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document "