(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the licence granted to the petitioner for the petroleum retail outlet of M/s Sivajyothi Enterprises vide order respondent bearing No.P/SC/AP/1/3134 (P64072) dated 28.11.2025, as illegal. arbitrary, violative of Rule 152 of Petroleum Rules, 2002 and principles of natural Justice, without assigning any reasons, and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the said order and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith restore the said licence and permit uninterrupted operations at the said premises, and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the licence cancellation order bearing no.P/SC/AP/1/3134(P64072) dated 28.11.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt.02.02.2026 in WP 2652 of 2026, to pass)

1. This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief:

                  “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of 2nd respondent in cancelling the license granted to the petitioner for the Petroleum Retail Outlet of M/s. Sivajyothi Enterprises vide Order respondent bearing No.P/SC/AP/1/3134(P64072) dated 28.11.2025, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Rule 152 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and principles of natural justice, without assigning any reasons and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, set-aside the order and direct the respondents to forthwith restore the said license and permit uninterrupted operations at the said premises and pass such other order or orders …”

2. Contents of the affidavit filed by the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager of Writ Petitioner, in brief, are that the schedule premises admeasuring 1,341 square yards of site situated in Town Survey No.3 of Waltair Ward, Block No.1, Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam belonged to one Resapu Sri Rama Reddy, and the said site was given to M/s.Sivajyothi Enterprises to operate ‘A’ site Petroleum Retail Outlet pertaining to the Writ Petitioner, commissioned on 30.07.2004 by granting license under Form XIV and the same was periodically renewed under the Petroleum Rules, 2002.

                  (b) Subsequently, the land owner viz. Resapu Sri Rama Reddy, died intestate leaving his two sons viz. Resapu Srinivasa Reddy and Resapu Sadasiva Reddy as his legal heirs. There exists a dispute between the land owners and the Writ Petitioner, regarding renewal of lease, therefore, the Writ Petitioner filed Original Suit No.185 of 2025 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam to direct the defendants therein to execute a Registered Renewal Lease Deed for a period of 20 years in respect of the schedule property and for Permanent Injunction and the same is pending for consideration. One Resapu Srinivasa Reddy, landlord of the Retail Outlet filed Writ Petition No.26040 of 2024 on the file of this Court, relating to continuation of operations at the said premises and the same is also pending for adjudication. Therefore, the entire issue, relating to lease, is sub- judice before the competent Forums.

                  (c) During pendency of aforesaid proceedings, 2nd respondent, without issuance of any show-cause notice, without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, despite the Writ Petitioner being in lawful possession of the premises, high- handedly and unilaterally cancelled the license vide No.P/SC/AP/ 14/3134(P64072), dated 28.11.2025 stating that the lease has expired, which is blatant violation of Rule 152 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. Respondent No.2 is a safety regulator, but not an adjudicator of private lease disputes and merely because a landlord demands for cancellation of license, 2nd respondent cannot cancel the license.

                  (d) The Writ Petitioner brought its grievance to the notice of the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, PESO, Secunderabad through a representation, dated 10.12.2025 and stated that the landlord had already consented for renewal, and negotiations for lease renewal are underway and therefore, cancellation, solely on the ground of alleged lease expiry, is improper and illegal. But, the said representation was neither considered nor answered by the PESO. The show-cause notice was merely uploaded in the website of 2nd respondent, which does not constitute valid or effective service.

                  (e) The respondent authorities acted in complete disregard of the Office Memorandum dated 06.02.2024 and Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2023 issued by 1st respondent-Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas (MoPNG), the parent Ministry exercising administrative control over 2nd respondent-PESO. The impugned cancellation Order dated 28.11.2025 is a sequel to the earlier interim suspension letter dated 28.04.2025 issued by 2nd respondent, which itself purportedly passed in alleged compliance with the Order dated 07.04.2025 in Writ Petition No.8983 of 2025. The Writ Petitioner is not a party to the proceedings in Writ Petition No.8983 of 2025, neither any notice was issued nor an opportunity was afforded to the Writ Petitioner before passing any order therein. The directions issued in Writ Petition No.8983 of 2025 was confined only for disposal of representation dated 23.01.2025 submitted by the private land owners and did not authorize the respondents to suspend or cancel the license of the Writ Petitioner without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 152 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. The Writ Petitioner was never heard in the said Writ proceedings and therefore, any adverse administrative action taken against the Writ Petitioner on the strength of the said order, is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. This Court vide Order dated 02.02.2026 passed the following interim Order:

                  “…Since no such notice has been issued to the petitioner, there shall be an interim suspension of the Order bearing No.P/SC/AP/14/3134 (P64072), dated 28.11.2025 passed by respondent No.2.”

4. Respondents filed an application to vacate the interim suspension order, along with counter-affidavit, denying the contents of the Writ-affidavit, contending inter alia that the land owner of the subject property sent a legal notice dated 23.01.2025 to the PESO, Visakhapatnam Office seeking cancellation of license due to expiry of lease on 17.06.2024 and it was categorically stated that they do not want to extend the lease period beyond 17.06.2024. Thus, the Writ Petitioner ceased to have any right to the site for storing petroleum. Respondent No.2 issued new show-cause notice dated 12.02.2025 as to why the license No.P/SC/AP/14/3134 (P64072) should not be suspended/ cancelled and as no reply was received, license in question was suspended on 28.04.2025, as an interim measure as per Rule 152 (1) (i) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. The Writ Petitioner had not submitted their reply before cancellation/suspension of license and the representation dated 10.12.2025 was received only after cancellation of license on 28.11.2025. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas through its Office Memorandum No.M- 12043(11)/6/2024-OMC-PNG, dated 06.02.2024 requested the Department of Promotion and Internal Trade, New Delhi (DPIIT) to put on hold the directive issued by it through Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2023. The Office Memorandum dated 06.02.2024 only requested the DPIIT to reconsider the Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2023 and no fresh circular/letter/directive has been issued putting the Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2023 on hold by the DPIIT, therefore, the Circular dated 26.12.2023 is still subsisting. The Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2023 issued directions to the PESO to cancel the license in view of Rule 152 after expiry of the lease term, if the licensee continues in possession pending litigation, since it is not a lawful possession and it amounts to litigious possession and it is not recognized as a right to the site under the Petroleum Rules, 2002.

                  (b) As per the direction given by this Court vide Order dated 07.04.2025 in Writ Petition No.8983 of 2025 to consider the representation dated 23.01.2025 of land owner within a period of 8 weeks, the Office of the PESO, Visakhapatnam cancelled the license as per Rule 152 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 on 28.11.2025 after issuing show-cause notice on 12.02.2025. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. Sri Ashok Ram.V, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner would contend that when the dispute between the land owner and the Writ Petitioner regarding renewal of lease is pending before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam vide O.S.No.185 of 2025 and the Writ Petition No.26040 of 2024, filed by the land owner, relating to continuation of operations of subject premises, is also pending before this Court, cancellation of license of Writ Petitioner, without giving an opportunity is violation of principles of natural justice, as the entire issue, relating to lease, is sub-judice before the competent Forums and it is blatant violation of Rule 152 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. Learned counsel would further contend that the show-cause notice was merely uploaded in the website of 2nd respondent, which does not constitute valid or effective service. According to the learned counsel, the impugned cancellation Order dated 28.11.2025 is a sequel to the earlier interim suspension letter dated 28.04.2025 issued by 2nd respondent, which itself purportedly passed in alleged compliance with the Order dated 07.04.2025 in Writ Petition No.8983 of 2025, in which, the Writ Petitioner is not a party.

6. Ms. Amrutha Boppudi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel representing the respondents would contend that the impugned cancellation of license was to the effect that the Writ Petitioner ceased to have any right to the site for storing petroleum, as the legal heirs of the land owner, in its legal notice dated 23.01.2025 to the PESO, Visakhapatnam Office, categorically stated that they do not want to extend the lease period beyond 17.06.2024. Learned counsel would further contend that there is no reply received from the Writ Petitioner to the show-cause notice dated 12.02.2025 issued by the respondents and the alleged representation dated 10.12.2025 made by the Writ Petitioner, was received only after cancellation of license on 28.11.2025. According to learned Central Government Standing Counsel, the license was cancelled in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2023 in view of Rule 152 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002.

7. Perused the entire material available on record.

8. It is an admitted fact that the Writ Petitioner is a Public Sector Undertaking Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Writ Petitioner, for setting up of a Retail Outlet (Petrol Bunk), obtained the subject land to an extent of 1341 square yards situated in TS No.3, Waltair Ward, Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam City belonged to one Resapu Sri Rama Reddy, on lease, and entered into a Lease Deed dated 18.06.2004 for a period of 20 (Twenty) years for an agreed monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- initially, with an escalation at the rate of 5% for every Three (03) years. It was also agreed that the last escalated rent that was being paid by the Writ Petitioner to the land owner is Rs.26,802/- with effect from 18.06.2022 until 17.06.2024, being the date of expiration of the said lease tenure.

9. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that subsequent to demise of the land owner Resapu Sri Rama Reddy, his sons viz. Resapu Srinivasa Reddy and Resapu Sadasiva Reddy acquired the title over the subject premises and as on 17.06.2024 by which date the lease period was going to expire, the legal heirs of the land owner Resapu Sri Rama Reddy, addressed a letter to the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager of Writ Petitioner on 22.05.2024 to consider the value of property and cost of living and requested to enhance the rent for renewal of lease at Rs.6.00 lakhs per month for a lease period of Five (05) years and Rs.8.00 lakhs per month for a lease period of Ten (10) years and the increment shall be at 5% per annum. In the meantime, the Writ Petitioner constituted a Negotiation Committee to conduct lease rental negotiations with legal heirs of the deceased land owner, and after negotiations, the Committee held that the Writ Petitioner was given final offer of Rs.8.00 lakhs per month vide Letter dated 03.07.2024 for 19 years 11 months and it was further recommended for renegotiating with the land owner.

10. A perusal of the material on record further goes to show that the legal heirs of the deceased land owner filed Writ Petition No.26040 of 2024 against the Writ Petitioner seeking the relief of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 therein, who is Writ Petitioner herein, to hand over the vacant possession of the subject premises to the Writ Petitioner therein and for other consequential reliefs. Indisputably, the said Writ Petition is pending on the file of this Court for adjudication. A perusal of the material on record further goes to show that the Writ Petitioner herein filed suit in O.S.No.185 of 2025 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam against the legal heirs of the deceased land owner seeking the reliefs to direct them to execute a Registered Renewal Lease Deed for a period of 20 years and for Permanent Injunction and the said suit is also pending for adjudication.

11. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner would contend that without issuance show-cause notice or without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, 2nd respondent issued impugned Cancellation Order dated 28.11.2025 cancelling the License  No.P/SC/AP/14/ 3134(P64072) under Rule 152 (1) (iii) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. According to the learned counsel mere uploading the show-cause notice in its official website does not amount to deemed service.

12. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel representing respondents would contend that respondents- authority issued Show-cause Notice vide No.P/SC/AP/14/3134 (P64072) dated 12.02.2025 to the Writ Petitioner calling for explanation within the stipulated period, failing which, the license would be suspended/ cancelled without making any further reference to the Writ Petitioner. Even though the show-cause notice was served on the Writ Petitioner, took the plea of non- service of the same, only to have some force in the contention. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel would further contend that the Writ Petitioner’s license was cancelled as the licensee ceases to have any right to the site for storing petroleum. She placed strong reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Choorapilan Jameela and another v. Padavanna Shamseer and others(2026 SCC OnLine Ker 317.), wherein the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam held as under: (paragraph No.10)

                  “License for storing petroleum in tanks for a Petroleum Retail Outlet is issued by the Respondent No.3 in Form XIV under Section 141 read with Article 5 of the First Schedule of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. Rule 152 of the Petroleum Rules provides that every license granted under the said Rules shall stand cancelled if the licensee ceases to have any right to the site for storing petroleum. On expiry of the Ext.P1 Lease Deed, the Respondent No.1 ceases to have the right to the site for storing petroleum. The contention of the Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.1 is that, as per the Proviso to Rule 152 (1), the holder of a license is entitled to an opportunity of being heard before cancelling the license. I am unable to accept the said contention. The said Proviso is applicable only in the case of suspension or cancellation of license under Clause (iii) of Rule 152 (1) by the Licensing Authority for any contravention of the Act or of any rule thereunder or of any condition contained in such license or by order of the Central Government, if it is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for doing so. When the licensee ceases to have any right to the site for storing petroleum, the license stands cancelled automatically without any formal order for the same by the Licensing Authority in view of Clause (iii) of Rule 152 (1). Hence, the question of following a procedure for cancellation or granting an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.1 does not arise.”

13. A perusal of the show-cause notice dated 12.02.2025 does not reveal as to whether it was served on the Writ Petitioner or not, but its contents disclose that the legal heirs of the deceased land owner of subject premises requested to cancel the license as the lease of the subject site expired on 17.06.2024 and as it amounts to violation of various provisions of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, the respondents-authority was said to have issued show-cause notice to the Writ Petitioner.

14. It is pertinent to refer to Rule 152 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, which deals with Suspension and Cancellation of license:

                  (1) Every licence granted under these rules shall-

                  (i) stand cancelled, if the licensee ceases to have any right to the site for storing petroleum;

                  (ii) stand cancelled, if the no-objection certificate is cancelled by the District Authority or the State Government in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 150;

                  (iii) be liable to be suspended or cancelled by an order of the licensing authority for any contravention of the Act or of any rule thereunder or of any condition contained in such licence, or by order of the Central Government, if it is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for doing so:

                  Provided that –

                  (a) before suspending or cancelling a licence under this rule, the holder of the licence shall be given an opportunity of being heard;

                  (b) the maximum period of suspension shall not exceed three months; and

                  (c) the suspension of a licence shall not debar the holder of the licence from applying  for its renewal in accordance with the provisions of Rule 148.

                  (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), an opportunity of being heard may not be given to the holder of a licence before his licence is suspended or cancelled in cases –

                  (a) where the licence is suspended by a licensing authority as an interim measure for violation of any of the provisions of the Act or these rules, or of any conditions contained in such licence and in his opinion such violation is likely to cause imminent danger to the public: Provided that where a licence is so suspended, the licensing authority shall give the holder of the licence an opportunity of being heard before the order of suspension is confirmed; or

                  (b) Where the licence is suspended or cancelled by the Central Government, if that Government considers that in the public interest or in the interest of the security of the State, such opportunity should not be given.

                  (3) A licensing authority or the Central Government suspending or cancelling a licence under sub-rule (1), shall record its reason for so doing in writing.

                  A plain reading of the above Rule goes to show that license can be cancelled if the licensee ceases to have any right to the site for storing petroleum. Indisputably, the license of the Writ Petitioner was initially suspended and later vide impugned order, cancelled, but such cancellation is not as an interim measure for violation of any of the provisions of the Act or the Petroleum Rules, 2002, or of any conditions contained in such license and is likely to cause imminent danger to the public. The license of the Writ Petitioner was cancelled due to the reason that the Writ Petitioner ceases to have any right to the site for storing petroleum. A reading of the above Rule further goes to show that before suspending or cancelling a license, the holder of the license shall be given an opportunity of being heard.

15. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel would contend that vide Circular dated 08.01.2020, the respondent No.2 launched paperless application and paperless grant/amendment of license Form XI and XIV issued under the Petroleum Rules, 2002. By placing reliance on the aforesaid Circular, learned counsel would contend that as per the guidelines of 2nd respondent, the applicant could view the license in his application portal and the authority need not provide printed copies/signed copies of the covering letter/license/discrepancy letter to the applicant. Therefore, as per the aforesaid guidelines, the show-cause notice dated 12.02.2025 was uploaded in the official portal and once it was dispatched by the authority concerned in the portal, the Writ Petitioner could view the same in his application portal.

16. Apparently, by relying upon the aforesaid Circular, it can be inferred that the show-cause notice dated 12.02.2025 was not served on the Writ Petitioner, in person. Due to the said reason, the Writ Petitioner was unaware of show-cause notice dated 12.02.2025, and also the impugned Interim suspension of license, dated 28.04.2025. Even a perusal of the impugned Cancellation Order dated 28.11.2025, it was held by 2nd respondent that there was no positive compliance received from the Writ Petitioner in regard to show-cause notice dated 12.02.2025 and thereby, 2nd respondent vide impugned Order dated 28.11.2025 in exercise of powers conferred upon under Rule 152 (1) (iii) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, cancelled the license with immediate effect. Indeed, subsequent to impugned Order dated 28.11.2025, the Writ Petitioner vide Ref:4402/VIZAG/SIVAJYOTHI ENT/2025-2026, dated 10.12.2025 addressed a letter to 2nd respondent stating that though the license expired, impliedly it is in subsistence, as monthly rents are being deposited to the lessee.

17. Above all, the legal heirs of the deceased land owner filed Writ Petition No.8983 of 2025 seeking the relief to direct the respondents therein to dispose of, the representation/notice dated 23.01.2025 made by them. This Court, vide Order dated 07.04.2025 directed the respondents therein to dispose of, the representation/notice dated 23.01.2025, strictly as per the Rules by issuing notice to the affected parties. Admittedly, the Writ Petitioner is the affected party, and the Writ Petitioner was not shown as a party to the aforesaid Writ Petition proceedings. Pursuant to the Order dated 07.04.2025, 2nd respondent vide Order dated 28.04.2025 issued impugned interim suspension of license of the Writ Petitioner and subsequently, impugned cancellation order dated 28.11.2025. But, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, when the show-cause notice dated 12.02.2025 itself is not served to the Writ Petitioner, passing the impugned interim suspension order dated 28.04.2025 and impugned cancellation order dated 28.11.2025 by 2nd respondent is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice, and violative of Rule 152 (1) (iii) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, which provides that before suspending or cancelling a license, the holder of the license shall be given  an opportunity of being heard, which is lacking in the present Writ Petition and the impugned Order dated 28.11.2025 cancelling the license of Writ Petitioner deserves to be set-aside.

18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.

Consequently, the impugned Order bearing No.P/SC/AP/1/3134 (P64072) dated 28.11.2025, cancelling the license granted to the Writ Petitioner for the Petroleum Retail Outlet of M/s.Sivajyothi Enterprises, is set-aside. No costs.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.