Judgment:
ORDER
1. A retail outlet dealer of Indian Oil Corporation, situate in the junction of Road No.1 and Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, was constrained to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the over-night demolition of a running petrol pump service station by the Municipal Corporation authorities without following the due process of law.
2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present writ petition is set out as hereunder:- The petitioner is a dealer of the Indian Oil Corporation and has been operating petrol and diesel outlet situate at the junction of Road No. 1 and Road No. 10 of Banjara Hills, Hyderabad since the inception of his dealership. The Indian Oil Corporation, the 8th respondent herein, took the site admeasuring 980 Square Yards situate in Survey Nos.266/2/1 and 266/2/2 under a registered lease deed dated 12-7-1973. The period of the lease was for 20 years from 1-10-1973 and it contained a term that the lease stands renewed on the expiry of the said period automatically and without any further act of the parties. Thus, after the expiry of the initial term of 20 years, the lease was automatically extended for a like term. The 8th respondent-Oil Corporation continued to pay the rents in the usual course to the owners of the land even after 1993 and the same were being accepted. By virtue of the conduct of the parties, the lease stood renewed. It would appear, the landowner filed a suit in OS No.890 of 1997 on the file of the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking a permanent injunction against the 8th respondent-Oil Corporation restrainingit from encroaching into the land on the southern side of the retail outlet. The said suit was dismissed on 5-6-2000. Meanwhile, the 8th respondent-Oil Corporation thought it advisable to take steps to permanently acquire the site and approached the District Collector, Hyderabad-2nd respondent in the year 1999 with a proposal to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act with regard to the site in question. It would appear, the District Collector responded favourably and directed the 8th respondent-Oil Corporation to deposit an amount of Rs.98,39,000-00 towards the tentative compensation. The said amount was accordingly deposited by way of Bankers Cheques bearing No.961081 dated 26-9-1999 and No.961022 dated 10-9-1999.
3. On 29-7-2000, Saturday at about 7-45 a.m., the staff of respondents 4 to 6 have trespassed into the retail outlet of the writ petitioner without serving any notice and demolished the canopies and other structures. The Supervisor and staff of the petitioner-Petrol Bunk told the staff that they are indulging in illegal demolition and it is in violation of the Explosives Act. The service station Supervisor was taken into custody by the Police of the Banjara Hills Police Station and was confined in the station. Again, on 30-7-2000 Sunday also the Municipal Coporation staff descended on the site and demolished the office room. Questioning the high-handed action of respondents 4 to 7, the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate relief.
4. Respondents 4 to 6 have filed a counter contending that by virtue of the compromise decree dated 12-11-1997 passed in OS No. 1731 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on Mohd. Abdul Azeem Zaki and eight others became the owners of the property in question and they in turn gave General Power of Attorney to Mr. Mohd.Abdul Muneem Haji Saith on 24-10-1997 and he in turn authorises Mr. N.S. Qureshi and both of them have expressed consent to the Municipal Corporation handing over the land and accordingly action has been initiated to take over the affected portion. The counter further states that the proposals of the Land Acquisition were also rejected since the land is required for road widening.
5. The 8th respondent-Oil Corporation filed a counter substantiating the averments of the writ petitioner. The Indian Oil Corporation further contended that with a view to acquire the site in question permanently they approached the District Collector with the proposal and that on the direction of the District Collector they deposited Rs.98,39,000-00 through bankers cheques toward the tentative compensation. It was also stated that the Municipal Corporation authorities without issuing any notice have entered into the premises on Saturday, the 29th July, 2000 and demolished the structures including canopies and the service station. The demolition continued on 30-7-2000, which happens to be a Sunday. The 8th respondent-Oil Corporation further stated that about 9700 liters of petrol and 13000 liters of diesel were stocked in the underground tanks of the site in question. It is also stated that the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad has now provided the Indian Oil Corporation with a list of alternate sites in various localities in the city.
6. Sri E. Manohar, the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner assailed the conduct of respondents 4 to 6 in ignoring the due process of law before indulging in wanton demolition of a running petrol service station on a Saturday and Sunday. It is his contention that there is no question of the alleged landlord handing over possession since the 8th respondent-Oil Corporation is the lesseeand the writ petitioner is a retail outlet dealer under the 8th respondent-Oil Corporation. In short, it is his contention that respondents 4 to 6 are statutory authorities and they ought to have followed due process of law instead of taking the law into their hands and ignoring all known principles of equity and fair play.
7. From the submissions made by the parties, it has to be examined whether respondents 4 to 6 have followed the due process of taw before indulging in demolition on 29-7-2000 and 30-7-2000. Even by their own showing in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 6, they have served a letter on the alleged representative of the landlord, one Mr. Nazir S. Qureshi, who in turn has a letter of authority from the General power of Attorney Holder of the landlord asking him to hand over the possession. Admittedly neither the landlord nor the General Power of Attorney holder or his authorised person is in possession of the land in question. It is only the 8th respondent-Indian Oil Corporation, the lessee, and its retail outlet dealer-the writ petitioner are in possession. Respondents 4 to 6 without serving any notice or letter entered into the Petrol Pump Service Station on Saturday (29-7-2000) morning and started demolition. It is a running business premises and it is nobody's case that they are trespassers and are in illegal occupation. To indulge in demolition without notice is nothing but an act of vandalism and wanton destruction. The writ petitioner is a retrail dealer of a statutory Corporation and the 8th respondent is the lessee of the property. This Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian does not wish to go into the question of title but will confine only to the limited aspect whether respondents 4 to 6 have followed the due process of law before indulging in the act of demolition.
8. The learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing for the State andrespondents 4 to 6, contended that the owner has given consent for taking over possession and the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad with a view to widen the road and have an island in 'T' junction tried to take possession. He contended that no notice was necessary to the tenant when the landlord has given consent. But from the facts of the present case it is not at all clear that the so called consent given by the landlord or the authorised person of the GPA Holder is to the knowledge of the 8th respondent-Oil Corporation and the writ petitioner who are the affected parties. On the face of the material placed before the Court, it cannot be said that the due process of law has been followed in this case. The learned Additional Advocate-General, befitting his status, has expressed that the Municipal Corporation of Hydeabad could have given reasonable time to the writ petitioner, who is running the petrol pump station, before demolition. After the completion of the arguments and when the order was reserved in the writ petition, Mr. Ramakrishna Reddy, senior Counsel, filed CMP No.18663 of 2000 and sought permission of this Court to implead the landlord as a party-respondent. He sumitted that the landlord has given the consent to the Municipal Corporation for taking over the land. As discussed earlier, the landlord is not in possession of the land and the question of his giving consent and handing over possession does not arise. By its own conduct the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad ignored the basic concept that even in administrative or executive action, which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice is applicable and it has to be followed implicitly. The principle of audi alteram partem which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard is part of the natural justice. Any action of the State and its other authorities must answer the test of reasonableness and it must be just and fair and should not be arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. Naturaljustice is nothing but fair play in action. Every State action must not only by transparent but it should be free from bias and malice. The action of respondents 4 to 6 in demolishing the running petrol pump service station on 29th and 30th of July, 2000 on a Saturday and Sunday without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.
9. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the facts of the case, I hold that the writ petitioner is entitled to run his business forthwith till 31st December, 2000 or till such time beyond 31st December, 2000 when respondents 1 to 7 complete the due process of law for taking possession of the land in question. Respondents 1 to 7 are directed not to interfere with the business activities of the writ petitioner during the above said period and it is open to respondents 4 to 6 to follow due process of law in taking possession of the property in question for a public purpose. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.