1. The writ petition is filed for issuance of appropriate direction to the first respondent Salem Steel Plant to restore the power and water supply in the premises of Petrol Pump outlet at Plot 1, Sector 1 of the Salem Steel Plant run by the petitioner herein.
2. The facts which remain undisputed are that the first respondent Salem Steel Plant and the second respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., entered into an agreement of lease on 13.02.1984 in respect of Plot 1, Sector 1 of the Salem Steel Plant for premium of Rs.55,083/- and monthly ground rent of Rs.46/- for a period of 33 years, subject to certain terms and conditions. On the strength of such lease agreement, the second respondent appointed the petitioner as his dealer to run a retail outlet of Petrol Pump in the land leased out to the second respondent. The petitioner herein has on the strength of his dealership invested huge amount of money for setting up and improving the Petrol Pump outlet and other required infrastructure. The petitioner has also invested several lakhs of working capital and has been carrying on the business strictly in accordance with rules and regulations by obtaining regular water and power supply from the first respondent, Salem Steel Plant and by paying due monthly rent to the first respondent on behalf of the second respondent under due receipt issued in the name of the second respondent and without any dues to either of the respondents. Whileso, there arose some dispute between the respondents 1 and 2 in the matter of registration of lease agreement as per one of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement leading to negotiation between the Respondents 1 and 2 without their being able to till date arrive at any settlement.
3. The reading of the letters issued by the first respondent to the second respondent with copies marked to the petitioner between 2008-2009 would also show that the petitioner/dealer was also involved in the negotiation between the respondents 1 and 2, in this regard. The first respondent in his latest letters addressed to the second respondent and to the petitioner between April 2009 and July 2009 informed the petitioner and the second respondent that in the event of the failure on the part of the second respondent to comply with the conditional clause for compulsory registration of the agreement, further action for cancellation of the lease and disconnection of water and power supply will be initiated.
4. The first respondent has thereafter effected disconnection of power and water supply to the petrol pump run by the petitioner. As the power and water supply are essential basic amenities to carry on petrol pump outlet business, the petitioner is constrained to approach this court by way of this writ petition for restoration of power and water supply to his petrol pump out let. The relief sought for in the writ petition is also supported by the second respondent/Hindustan petroleum Corporation Limited.
5. The relief sought for in the writ petition is seriously opposed by the first respondent mainly on the ground that there is no contractual relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent so as to maintain writ petition and even assuming it to be true that one such relationship is in-existence the remedy available to the petitioner for breach of contractual obligation is elsewhere and not by way of writ petition. It is further contended by the first respondent that the second respondent is bound to effect registration of the agreement within 11 months from the date of the lease agreement and it is the obligation of the second respondent to supply power and water to his dealer and the first respondent is no way bound to supply the same. It is discretionary for the first respondent to supply the amenities to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot resort to any legal proceedings against the first respondent, that too for issuance of writ of mandamus for restoration of the power and water supply, which is supplied and disconnected by the first respondent on his own.
6. Heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Salem Steel Plant/first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.
7. It is true that the agreement of lease is entered into only between the respondents 1 and 2 and it is equally true, that there is no contractual relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent. The agreement between the respondents 1 and 2 is of the year 1984 and the same is valid for 33 years upto 2017 and the petitioner has also commenced his business with the supply of power and water by the first respondent as dealer of the second respondent during 1984 and the same arrangement is continuing for nearly 25 years and the issue relating to non registration of the agreement by the second respondent is seriously raised by the first respondent only during 2007-2009 nearly after more than two decades from the date of the agreement.
8. That being the conduct of the first respondent in not insisting upon production of the registration certificate and in continuing the supply of amenities of power and water to the petitioner after regularly receiving the rent from him for more than two decades, such arrangement cannot be sought to be easily disturbed, particularly when the petitioner has been carrying on his business without any room for complaint in what so manner from any quarter. The non-existence of any contractual relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent cannot be put at this stage put forth by the first respondent that too in the matter of supply of essential requirement for carrying on the business. The same ground cannot also be availed by the first respondent to question the locus-standi of the petitioner to maintain any legal action against such unreasonable and unwarranted interference. The first respondent is by reason of the uninterrupted supply of power and water to the petitioner by the first respondent for such longer period estopped by his conduct in opposing the claim of the petitioner.
9. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent any action of the authority concerned which is otherwise improper and erroneous cannot be allowed to remain alive and operative solely on the ground that the person who filed the writ petition has directly no locus-standi. The Apex Court has observed so in the judgment reported in AIR 2000 SCC 3266 in [M.S.Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and others]. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 8 to 13 of its judgment has after referring to various earlier judgments of Supreme Court discussed elaborately the concept of locus-standi and has in the same line of earlier judgments given widest amplitude meaning to the concept of Locus-standi. The sum and substance is that the expression "Locus-standi" cannot be given restricted meaning of "aggrieved person" and that the concept is much wider and take its side any one who is not a busy body or a meddlesome interloper.
10. Here in this case, the petitioner and not the second respondent is the person who is actually aggrieved by the disconnection of power and water supply by the first respondent and is the competent person to legally challenge the same before this court. The first respondent having not raised for more than two decades, the issue of non registration of the agreement is totally unjustified in disconnecting basic amenities in Petrol Pump out let without which the business cannot carried out that too pending negotiation between the respondents 1 and 2 in this regard. By reason of such unfair and unreasonable act of the first respondent the business of the petitioner which is otherwise legally carried on has come to a stand still and it is on the verge of closure.
11. It is further represented on the side of the second respondent, that the respondents 1 and 2 have almost during the pendency of the writ petition sort out their difference in the matter of registration of the document and the second respondent is likely to comply with the condition within reasonable time. That being the present factual position so long as the lease is allowed to be valid the first respondent is also bound to maintain the same arrangement between the petitioner and the first respondent in the matter of water and power supply.
12. Hence, this court, after considering the submissions made on both sides is of the reasonable view, that the first respondent is to be necessarily directed to maintain the same state of affairs, prior to the impugned disconnection of power and water supply. During the pendency of the writ petition power and water supply is already restored to the petitioner's petrol pump outlet on the strength of the direction made in the M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009, the first respondent is directed to continue to provide the power and water supply to the petitioner petrol pump outlet, Plot 1, Sector 1 of the Salem Steel Plat run by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.