logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 014 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Writ Appeal No. 1446 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
Parties : Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Another Versus Nadella Purna Chandra Rao & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Dominic Fernandes (SC FOR IOCL). For the Respondent: K. Ravi Mahender.
Date of Judgment : 06-01-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- Order dated 02.07.2025 in WP No.31174 of 2024
- Common order dated 13.11.2024 in WP Nos.25779 and 18813 of 2024
- W.A No.1446 of 2025

2. Catch Words:
Mandamus, Vacate, Interim Orders, Extension of Time, Writ Appeal

3. Summary:
The Court heard a writ appeal against a Single Judge’s order directing Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) to vacate a retail outlet site in Nagole Village. The appellate court noted that the earlier order of 02.07.2025 was based on a prior common order dated 13.11.2024, both directing vacatur. Consistent decisions in similar writ petitions were highlighted, leading the Court to uphold the earlier direction. Consequently, the appeal (W.A No.1446 of 2025) and related applications were dismissed. However, the Court, acknowledging the appellant’s counsel, granted a two‑month extension to vacate the premises. All interim orders were vacated, and no costs were awarded.

4. Conclusion:
Appeal Dismissed
Judgment :-

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 19.08.2025 in Writ Petition No.22695 of 2025 wherein a Writ of Mandamus was sought to declare the action of the respondents/Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) in failing to vacate the Retail Outlet site over a land situated at Nagole Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and for directing the said respondents to handover the vacant physical possession of the property to the writ petitioners.

2. The appellants before this Court were the respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the learned Single Judge.

3. The learned Single Judge relied on an order dated 02.07.2025 passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No.31174 of 2024 whereby the Court had directed the respondent No.2/IOCL to vacate the subject premises as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The learned Single Judge followed the order dated 02.07.2025 in WP No.31174 of 2024 in exact measure without going into the factual merits and directed the appellants to vacate the subject premises preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants/IOCL also places a common order dated 13.11.2024 passed by one of us in two Writ Petitions (Nos.25779 and 18813 of 2024) which involved the same relief i.e., for a direction on IOCL to vacate the subject premises.

5. Counsel submits that the order dated 02.07.2025 in WP No.31174 of 2024 relied on the common order passed in WP Nos.25779 and 18813 of 2024.

6. The respondent Nos.1 to 3/Writ Petitioners are represented.

7. Considering that several Courts have decided Writ Petitions filed for similar reliefs in favour of the Writ Petitioners and directed the appellants to vacate the concerned premises within a specific period of time, we do not find any reason to make a departure from the consistent view taken in those Writ Petitions.

8. W.A No.1446 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed.

9. Considering the fairness shown by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants, we deem it fit to extend the time to the appellants to vacate the concerned premises by two months from today, as requested.

10. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal