The Divisonal Retail Sales Head v. M. Kumaresan

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard.

¶2This application was taken up for consideration on mention being made.

¶3Learned Additional Solicitor General of India would submit that the order dated 21.1.2026, by which the writ appeal was finally disposed of, gives an impression as if it was a consent order, whereas, it is not a case of consent. He would submit that whatever stated by the counsel was based on certain instructions which were not clear. He would further submit that after the copy of the judgment was obtained, it was found that the order, as stated in paragraph 2, indicates as if it is a case of consent.

¶4The order came to be passed by us only granting liberty to continue because this Court, on merits, was not inclined to interfere. The order of the learned Single Judge clearly stated the admitted facts that in spite of cancellation of the final explosives licence by the Controller of Explosives and no objection certificate by the DRO, Vellore, the appellant continues to keep its belongings, such as pumps, tanks, pipelines, etc. in the premises. As the appellant was not vacating the premises, the writ petitioner, who is the owner of the land, approached the Court. It is also admitted fact on record that the property in question belongs to the writ petitioner and he was appointed as a dealer of the appellant Corporation. The lease came to an end on 13.1.2024. Despite that, the belongings, such as pump sets, tanks, pipelines etc., were not removed by the appellant Corporation. The appellant Corporation has unauthorisedly continued to retain the possession without removing the belongings, such as pump sets, tanks, pipelines etc. This is not only causing great hardship to the writ petitioner, but an illegality is perpetuated by the appellant Corporation.

¶5Taking into consideration these aspects when this Court was not inclined to interfere with the order, as a mercy prayer, time was sought to vacate the premises, which was granted by the Court.

¶6It appears that after this order was passed, the authorities of the appellant are trying to take undue advantage. The order passed by this Court earlier to the extent it grants three months' time to vacate the premises stands withdrawn. The appellant Corporation is directed to forthwith remove all the belongings and handover vacant possession to the writ petitioner.

¶7The application is, accordingly, disposed of. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

27.02.2026 bbr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN C.M.P.No.4283 of 2026 in W.A.No.151 of 2026 The Divisional Retail Sales Head Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Chennai Division Office, Marketing Division, No.500, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. Petitioner Vs M.Kumaresan S/o.Munisamy, No.32, 7th Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore - 632 006. Respondent For Petitioner: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Addl. Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr.R.Sreedhar For Respondent: Mr.V.B.R.Menon (through Video Conferencing)