JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who was granted licence for the allotment of retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation under the defence category in the month of February, 1993. However, he could not establish the petrol pump in Mhow Cantonment as he could not obtain a piece of land for the purpose of running of such outlet. He therefore started petrol pump just outside cantonment area i.e. Dongergaon (Mhow) about 20 years ago and it has been running. Till such time, his license was terminated and against which he is before us in another writ petition. 2. He assailed the permission granted by the respondents to Sanjay Auto Services who were also similarly granted license by Indian Oil Corporation for running petrol pump in Mhow Cantonment somewhere in 1927 and who had been running petrol pump in Mhow Cantonment since then. However, after original lease had expired, the said respondent wanted to shift the petrol pump at some other place in cantonment area and for which, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 granted a lease for some other place for shifting the petrol pump in favour of respondent No. 7 who is of course a civilian. 3. It is the submission of the appellant that granting of lease to respondent No. 7 who is civilian after the expiry of original lease period, is contrary to law and in fact, even when it was the case of the renewal of lease, rules requires that such lease ought to have been granted only to the eligible person i.e. to say, defence personnel. It is therefore, submitted that renewal of the lease in favour of the said respondent at different place in the cantonment area was illegal. 4. Writ petition was filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in granting license to respondent No.5 for shifting petrol pump of respondent No.7. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned order assailing before us. 5. It is also matter of record that to challenge the allotment, another writ petition No.6555/2013 was filed by one Colonel Mohammad Zakariya on the same ground as was taken by the present petitioner. Said writ petition was dismissed on 02/09/2013 by learned single Judge of this Court. 5. It is also matter of record that to challenge the allotment, another writ petition No.6555/2013 was filed by one Colonel Mohammad Zakariya on the same ground as was taken by the present petitioner. Said writ petition was dismissed on 02/09/2013 by learned single Judge of this Court. The observations made by learned single Judge in that case is reproduced hereunder : From perusal of record, it is evident that land which is being allotted to the IOC is not for establishment of new retail outlet but for shifting of the retail outlet which was in existence right from 1927 because of the increase of automobile traffic upon request shifting was permitted for which the lease was also executed, therefore it cannot be said that respondents are in occupation of the land illegally or recently allotment is made. Since the petitioner is claiming allotment of petrol pump being ex-servicemen, therefore petitioner can always apply for the said outlet as and when the applications are being invited by the IOC but only because permission of shifting is granted by the respondent, it cannot be quashed under a writ jurisdiction especially when a petrol pump was established in the year 1927. In view of this, the petition has no merits and the same stands dismissed. 6. It may be observed here that respondent No. 9 was the same respondent who is 7th respondent in the present writ petition filed by the petitioner. 7. During the course of arguments Mr. Yogesh Mittal who appeared for Indian Oil Corporation submitted that in that case also, learned single Judge has taken note of all the facts while dismissing the writ petition in that case which is virtually the grievance of the present petitioner also. 8. It will be appropriate to take note of all the facts as discussed by learned single Judge to appreciate the reasons given and the factual controversy involved. Relevant discussion is reproduced hereunder for the sake of reference : Learned counsel for petitioner argued at length and submits that as per clause 26 of the Lease of Defence Land of Cantonment Laws specifically provides that the land be leased to the IOC in future on condition that the dealership is reserved to ex-serviceman of the three services. Relevant discussion is reproduced hereunder for the sake of reference : Learned counsel for petitioner argued at length and submits that as per clause 26 of the Lease of Defence Land of Cantonment Laws specifically provides that the land be leased to the IOC in future on condition that the dealership is reserved to ex-serviceman of the three services. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the letter dated 29/9/2006 (Annx.P/3) written by Defence Estate Officer, Mhow to the Ministry of Defence whereby it was informed that petrol pump is being unauthorisely run by civilian agency/respondent No.9 without grant of any lease/licence. It was alleged that vide letter dated 19/12/2003, it was informed that respondent No.9 is not qualified for the lease of land for the petrol pump as respondent No.9 comes in the ex-serviceman category. Vide letter dated 17/4/2006 Principal Director, Defence Estates submitted that the present petrol pump is being run by respondent No.9 and submitted that proposal for allotment of land to IOC was silent on this aspect. It was also informed that the present petrol pump is shifted to the new location which will continue to be run by respondent No.9 and that would a clear case of violation of the direction issued in this regard by the Govt. of India. Learned counsel placed reliance on various rules relating to Cantonment laws. It is submitted that petition be allowed and necessary directions be issued. IOC has submitted reply wherein it is alleged that the allotment of lease hold land has been challenged on the ground that respondent No.3 has no authority to establish the petrol pump on the defence land except the dealership of that establishment has been awarded to the Ex-serviceman of the defence category with a further prayer against the respondents not to shift the dealership affairs of existing retail outlet run by respondent No.9 on newly allotted lease hold land bearing GLR S.No.415 of Mhow, District Indore. It is submitted that to catter the requirement of British army vehicles and also to fulfil the requirements of then very small civil population of Mhow Town, the Defence Estate Officer of Mhow leased out an area admeasuring 750 sq.ft. of GLR S.N.386 to Burmah Shell Oil Corporation for establishment of petrol pump. It is submitted that to catter the requirement of British army vehicles and also to fulfil the requirements of then very small civil population of Mhow Town, the Defence Estate Officer of Mhow leased out an area admeasuring 750 sq.ft. of GLR S.N.386 to Burmah Shell Oil Corporation for establishment of petrol pump. The said lease was initially granted for a period of 30 years w.e.f. 4/3/1927 and on expiry of that period the lease was extended up to 2/6/1965. The possession of the said petrol pump site was taken over from Burmah Shell Oil Corporation on 4/6/1965. Meanwhile, Govt. of India had issued order for grant of lease of the land to the IOC where the petrol pump of Burmah Shell Oil Corporation was situated. It was alleged that IOC agreed to establish the petrol pump on existing area of 750 sq.ft. And also on additional land of Survey No.667 situated nearby admeasuring total area of 1381 sq.ft.. It was alleged that for setting up a retail outlet, a formal permission from District Magistrate, Indore was granted by the office of the District Collector Indore vide their letter dated 24/6/1965 and possession of survey No.667 was delivered on 6/8/66. It was alleged that respondents established a retail outlet for sale of petroleum products on the land allotted for the said purpose and respondent No.9 is running the said outlet business since 1965 as the dealer appointed by the respondents. It was alleged that Government of India, Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 19/3/79 asked the respondents for payment of rental charges in respect of defence lands whereupon the IOC has set up their retail outlet. In the said communication the Government has also clarified the payment of rental charges applicable and renewal of lease of those lands whereupon the petrol pump was set up and run by the person other than the policy for allotment of petrol pump to the Ex-serviceman came into force on 12/4/72. It was alleged that IOC repeteadly communicated the defence authorities for depositing the lease rent of the land in question. It is alleged that IOC is in occupation of the land right from 27/12/65 onwards and under a valid permission. It is alleged that retail outlet owned by IOC is the only retail outlet in the Mhow city. It was alleged that IOC repeteadly communicated the defence authorities for depositing the lease rent of the land in question. It is alleged that IOC is in occupation of the land right from 27/12/65 onwards and under a valid permission. It is alleged that retail outlet owned by IOC is the only retail outlet in the Mhow city. It is submitted that population of Mhow has increased proportionately and number of automobile vehicles have also increased in Mhow, the functioning and providing services to the Public and to the defence personals was getting difficult for the respondents from their retail outlet. The retail outlet of IOC is situated on cross section of 3 busy roads, thus it get very chaotic at retail outlet in peak hours of day. In the facts and circumstances IOC vide its letter dated 4/5/99 requested to Defence Estate Officer Mhow to renew present lease or to provide them alternate and adequate land for shifting of their existing retail outlet so that they can provide well deserves services to the people. It is submitted that another reason for shifting of retail outlet to new land was that the current retail outlet is located only 300 mtrs. From the military warehouse of arms and ammunition which is highly dangerous and volatile substances are located near retail outlet, it would be necessary to shift the retail outlet to distant land for safety of public at large. Vide letter dated 30/1/2004, respondent No.3 requested respondent No.8 for shifting of outlet. Upon request, respondent No.7 agreed to allot parcel of land out of two lands to respondent Nos.3 and 4 for shifting of existing retail outlet from land bearing survey Nos.386 and 667 and the lands which were outered to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for shifting of retail outlet were land bearing survey No.415 admeasuring 5230 sq.ft. and land bearing S.N.353. Vide letter dated 16/2/2005, letter was sent for consent for shifting of existing retail outlet. After acceptance by the IOC for shifting their existing petrol pump, Principal Director allotted the proposed land to the answering respondent and sent the proposal for its approval before the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. In furtherance to the requisition, the approval was given by the Ministry of Defence vice letter dated 17/11/2011 with certain conditions. After acceptance by the IOC for shifting their existing petrol pump, Principal Director allotted the proposed land to the answering respondent and sent the proposal for its approval before the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. In furtherance to the requisition, the approval was given by the Ministry of Defence vice letter dated 17/11/2011 with certain conditions. In furtherance of approval, the letter dated 16/12/2011 was issued by respondent No.8 to respondent No.3 mentioning the condition laid by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence for execution of lease for land bearing survey No.415 of Mhow, District Indore with specific direction for shifting of existing retail outlet within 3 months. In compliance of that, the lease deed was executed on 12/12/2012 which was executed u/S. 280 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 by paying rent equal to four times the rent multiplied by ten as the number of years for which lease/ renewal of lease was sanctioned and as per the conditions laid down by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence in their approval letter dated 17/11/2011. It is submitted that after execution of lease deed, the answering respondent has applied for building construction permission from competent authority and Executive Officer of Mhow Cantonment sanctioned the building plan and issued permission vide letter dated 17/4/2013. The respondent also deposited the lease rent of Rs.2,60,000/- for the year 2013-2014. It is submitted that petition be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that renewal of the lease in favour of respondent i.e. respondent No. 9 in the earlier writ petition (who is respondent No. 7 in the present writ petition), is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Sai Chalchitra v. Commissioner, Meerut Mandal and others, reported in 2005(3) MPLJ 14. 10. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring our notice any law which prohibits renewal of lease in favour of civilian, even though the said person was already occupying plot in cantonment area where the petrol pump was being running even since 1927 rather clause 28 of guidelines framed for the purpose of granting lease of defence land for retail outlets for POL/Service Stations provides that while in the case of fresh leases and renewal of leases of land has to be allotted on concessional terms where dealership is given to ex-servicemen. Fresh leases and renewals in all other cases are to be granted on normal terms i.e. rent equal to four times. This shows that there is no absolute bar in granting lease in case of renewal to the person who is civilian. 11. It is a matter of record that insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, his license to run petrol pump stands terminated. He is before us in another writ petition. In these circumstances, petitioner had been running petrol pump for the period of 20 years despite license granted to him since 1993 cannot be permitted to assail the decision of the authority who have simply allotted another place in the cantonment to a person who is running petrol pump since 1927 on account of practical difficulty as discussed by learned single Judge in the case of Colonel Mohammad Zakariya as discussed above. We therefore dismiss the present writ appeal as we do not find any infirmity under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 12. CC as per rules. Appeal dismissed.