- (1.) The two petitions involve common questions. It is also submitted by the common petitioner that the subsequent petition is the more exhaustive and an order made on the subsequent petition will govern the previous matter.
(2.) The writ petitioner entered into an agreement with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) on January 14, 2006 for selling a land in Hooghly district. THE agreement envisaged that certain payments were to be made by BPCL to the petitioner within a stipulated time. Clause 6 of the agreement gave the would be vendor a right to rescind the agreement in the event due steps were not taken within the time stipulated. It is the petitioner's case that by April 30, 2007 meaningful steps had not been taken by BPCL whereupon the petitioner issued a letter rescinding the agreement. THE petitioner says that notwithstanding the agreement having been rescinded, BPCL has continued to be in illegal possession of the land and has unfairly obtained permission from the licensing authority for operating a petrol pump at the site. There is a history to the matter. Shortly after the petitioner rescinded the agreement of January 14, 2006, the petitioner applied to the licensing authority, the Additional District Magistrate (Development), Hooghly, for cancellation of the licence issued in favour of BPCL for operating a petrol pump at the site. By an order of December 29, 2008 the licensing authority annulled the licence. BPCL carried such order in appeal and the appellate authority set aside the licensing authority's order on January 27, 2009. Then followed the first writ petition before this Court. The petitioner herein challenged the appellate authority's (Commissioner) order in W.P. 1712 (W) of 2009. Such petition was disposed of on February 11, 2009 on the ground that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of presenting the petitioner's version of things before the order was made. The order of February 11, 2009 made it clear that the merits of the matter had not been gone into. Before the appellate authority could reconsider the matter in terms of the High Court order of February 11, 2009, BPCL had instituted a civil suit seeking specific performance of the agreement of January 14, 2006. An ad interim order was made therein. The writ petitioner herein, as the defendant in the suit, also applied for an interlocutory injunction. Both the plaintiff's and the defendant's applications were finally disposed of by a common judgment and order of March 4, 2009. The Civil Court restrained the writ petitioner herein from selling the suit property to any third person and further restrained the writ petitioner from interfering with BPCL's possession of the properly till the disposal of the suit.
(3.) In point of time, the appellate authority's order came next. Pursuant to the remand of the matter before the appellate authority in terms of the High Court order of February 11, 2009, such authority heard the appeal from the order dated December 29, 2008 and directed on March 24, 2009 that a provisional licence be issued in favour of BPCL for operating the petrol pump. IN terms of the appellate order, the licensing authority issued a licence on March 26, 2009 upto December 31, 2009. The order of the appellate authority came to be challenged in the second writ petition filed before this Court. On receiving W.P. 6403 (W) of 2009, no interim order was made on August 27, 2009. The Civil Court's order of March 4, 2009 was carried in appeal before this Court on its appellate side and by an order dated May 21, 2009 the Appellate Court required the parties to maintain status quo as on that date, "as regards possession, nature and character of the disputed property and the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court, as regards transfer, alienation or encumbrance of the suit property shall remain operative.";