Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner Corporation has set up a network of retail outlet dealers through whom it markets its petroleum products. One such retail outlet is situated, at Pantheon Road, Egmore, in the land belonging to the respondents 2 to 4. The superstructure in the said land, the underground storage tank and the other fittings therein, belong to the petitioner Corporation. 3. It had been further stated that the vacant land, comprised in survey No.1285 part, in Chintadaripet, Egmore, Chennai, admeasuring 5844 sq.ft., had been leased out, by late J.S.Mitchell and C.A.Nunis, in favour of the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing company of India Ltd., the predecessor in title of the petitioner Corporation, for a period of 20 years by way of a lease deed, dated 15.2.1964. The lease period was, from 1.10.1963 to 30.9.1983. Another portion of the vacant land, having an extent of 2929 sq.ft., in the same survey number, at No.501 Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai, had also been taken on lease, by the said Company, from W.H.Nune and Daisy Nune, by way of a lease deed, dated 17.2.1964, for a period of 20 years. Finally, the right over the title and interest of the Company had vested in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the petitioner in the present writ petition. 4. It has been further stated that, in terms of Sections 5(2) and 7(3) of the Act 2 of 1976, the petitioner had exercised its statutory option to renew the lease, for a further period of 20 years, by way of a letter, dated 17.8.1983, on the same terms and conditions as that of the previous lease granted in favour of the erstwhile Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd. Consequently, the lease had been renewed, statutorily, from 1.10.1983 to 30.9.2003. While so, the respondents 2 and 3 had filed a writ petition, before this Court, in W.P.No.2609 of 1984, challenging the vires of Sections 5 and 7 of the Act. While so, the respondents 2 and 3 had filed a writ petition, before this Court, in W.P.No.2609 of 1984, challenging the vires of Sections 5 and 7 of the Act. The writ petition has been dismissed by this Court, by its order, dated 25.10.1993, following its earlier judgments of this Court, leaving it open to the petitioners, in the said writ petition, to agitate their rights for the enhancement of rent, in respect of the property concerned, by way of separate proceedings. Thereafter, the second and the third respondents had filed another writ petition, before this Court, in W.P.No.34113 of 2003, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent Corporation therein to vacate and to hand over the possession of the property leased out to the said Corporation. 5. It had also been stated that, by an order, dated 23.6.2004, this Court had directed the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-, per month, towards the use and occupation of the property in question, by the said Corporation, from 1.1.2004. However, by an order, dated 4.8.2005, the First Bench of this Court had dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner therein could avail the alternative remedy, by filing a civil suit. Thereafter, the second and the third respondents had filed a writ petition, before this Court, in W.P.No.25423 of 2007, praying for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent therein, to cancel the ‘no objection certificate’ issued to the Corporation, in respect of the property, comprised in Survey No.1285 Part, in Chintadaripet, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai, and to direct the Explosive Safety Organisation to cancel the Explosive Licence, granted in favour of the Corporation. 6. It had also been stated that, by an order, dated 19.2.2010, the writ petition has been disposed of, by this Court, directing the first respondent in the said writ petition, to consider the representation of the second and the third respondents, dated 10.5.2006 and 1.2.2007 and to pass an order, on merits and in accordance with law, and to decide as to whether the Corporation is entitled to the grant of renewal of licence, under Rule 148 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, and also by considering whether the Corporation had the right to site, in respect of the property in question, as the lease granted in favour of the Corporation had not been renewed, from 30.9.2003. Pursuant to the said order, the first respondent had issued a letter, dated 9.4.2010, to the petitioner Corporation, asking the Corporation to produce the relevant documents relating to the matter. Thereafter, the first respondent had passed an order, dated 29.7.2010, cancelling the no objection certificate granted in favour of the Corporation, on the ground that the lease had expired, on 30.9.2003. 7. It had also been stated that, aggrieved by the said order, the Corporation had filed the writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.19196 of 2010. The said writ petition had been disposed of, on 22.12.2010. A direction had been issued by this Court, by its order, dated 22.12.2010, directing the second and the third respondents, in the present writ petition, who are the third and the fourth respondents, in W.P.No.19196 of 2010, to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 24.5.2010, submitted by them to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It was also made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation, in the form of a reply to the first respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent was to pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, by taking into account the order, dated 19.2.2010, made in W.P.No.25423 of 2007. 8. It had also been stated that, pursuant to the said order, the first respondent had cancelled the no objection certificate granted in favour of the Corporation, in respect of the retail outlet at Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent denying the averments and allegations made by the petitioner Corporation in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 10. It has been stated that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, in view of the orders passed by this Court, in W.P.No.19196 of 2010 and W.P.No.25423 of 2010, and after considering the submissions made on behalf of parties concerned. 11. 10. It has been stated that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, in view of the orders passed by this Court, in W.P.No.19196 of 2010 and W.P.No.25423 of 2010, and after considering the submissions made on behalf of parties concerned. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 had submitted that the writ petition filed by the Corporation is devoid of merits, as the lease granted in favour of the Corporation had not been renewed after the year, 2003. Therefore, he had lost the right to site. 12. He had further submitted that Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921, can be applied to the petitioner Corporation, only if the suit had been filed for the eviction of the petitioner. 13. He had further submitted that Section 3 of the Petroleum Act, 1934, makes it clear that no one shall import, transport or store any petroleum save in accordance with the Rules made under Section 4 of the said Act. 14. The learned counsel had further submitted that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 15.2.2012, cancelling the no objection certificate, which had been granted in favour of the petitioner, under the petroleum Rules, 2002, stating that the petitioner had lost the right to site, as there was no renewal of the lease in favour of the petitioner Corporation, in respect of the demised property. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in C.ALBERT MORRIS Vs. K.CHANDRASEKARAN (2006) 1 SCC 228 ), to state that when the lease period, in respect of the land in question, had expired and when the lease had not been renewed, the erstwhile lessee ceased to have any right to the site. 16. He had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in YOGESH KUMAR Vs. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD., (1990) 4 SCC 49 ), wherein, it has been held that a no objection certificate granted, under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, shall be liable to be cancelled, when the licensee had ceased to have the right to use the site, for storing the Petrol. The right to use the site shall cease, not only on the tenancy or the right to use the site coming to an end, but also for any other reason. 17. The right to use the site shall cease, not only on the tenancy or the right to use the site coming to an end, but also for any other reason. 17. The learned counsel had further submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, as the issues arising for the consideration of this Court, in the present writ petition, are contractual in nature. Further, the petitioner ought to have availed the appellate remedy provided, under Rule 154 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the wrong rule had been quoted in the impugned order of the first respondent for cancelling the no objection certificate granted in favour of the petitioner, instead of passing the order under Rule 150 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. The first respondent had passed the order, under Rule 153 of the said Rules, which could be invoked only for the purpose of cancelling the license. 19. He had further submitted that there was no rule stating that a lease agreement should be in existence for the continued possession of the no objection certificate, unlike in the Liquor Vending Rules. In fact, after the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner would continue to be a statutory tenant, in respect of the vacant land granted to the petitioner, for establishing the retail outlet. 20. He had further submitted that the petitioner would have the right to purchase the land in question, under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921. 21. He had also submitted that the respondents 2 to 4 had not chosen to file an ejectment suit, inspite of the order passed by this Court and therefore, the petitioner would have the right to site due to the default committed by the said respondent. If the full meaning is given to the words 'Right to Site', the no objection certificate granted in favour of the petitioner cannot be cancelled, even though no lease deed is in favour of the petitioner, at present. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also submitted that the petitioner had raised a number of objections in its reply to the notice issued by the first respondent. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also submitted that the petitioner had raised a number of objections in its reply to the notice issued by the first respondent. However, the objections had not been considered by the first respondent, while passing the impugned order. When the impugned order had been passed by the first respondent without jurisdiction, the said order is non est in the eye of law. 23. He had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions. 1. S.GANESAN Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER EXCISE ( 2000 (1) CTC 193 ) 2. HARBANSLAL SAHNIA Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD., (2003) 2 SCC 107 . 3. UNION OF INDIA Vs. TANTIA CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD., (2011) 5 SCC 697 . 4. TAMIL MANILA THOZHILALAR SANGAM Vs. CHAIRMAN TNEB (1998) (III) CTC 1. 5. K.RAAMASELVAM Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK ( 2009 (5) CTC 385 ) 6. STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GANESHI LAL ( AIR 2008 SC 690 ) 7. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., Vs. RAJ KUMARI ( AIR 2008 SC 403 ) 8. STATE OF M.P. Vs. NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN (2011) 7 SCC 639 . 24. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, and on considering the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable. 25. It is seen that there is an efficacious alternate remedy available, under Rule 154 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, challenging the impugned order of the second respondent. 26. Even though various grounds had been raised by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, challenging the impugned order of the first respondent, this Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition, without going into the merits of the matter, in view of the appellate remedy available to the petitioner, under Rule 154 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. 27. Even though the first respondent might have passed the impugned order quoting a wrong rule, as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it cannot be a sufficient reason for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 28. In such view of the matter, this Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner. 28. In such view of the matter, this Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy provided under Rule 154 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, by filing an appeal, as provided therein, raising all the grounds available to the petitioner, including those which had been raised in the present writ petition. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.