JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of second respondent herein impugned proceedings CBEDO/R/Mahaluxmi - TPR dated 04.03.2020 is illegal and quash the same and consequential direction to second respondent to work out the remedy to the Public Works Department in Government of Tamil Nadu till the disposal of the second respondent representation which was pending before the Government and pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and thus render justice.) 1. This writ petition was taken up by way of web hearing in a video conferencing platform today in the light of writ petitioner urging that it is an extremely urgent matter, Hon'ble Predecessor Judge having entertained the same and having issued notice returnable by today vide proceedings dated 09.04.2020. 2. Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan, learned Standing counsel for Indian Oil Corporation Limited ('IOCL' for brevity), who has accepted notice on behalf of both respondents are before me in the web hearing today. With the consent of both sides, main writ petition is taken up, heard out and it is being disposed of. 3. Respondents shall be collectively referred to as 'IOCL' being abbreviation for 'Indian Oil Corporation Limited' as already mentioned supra. 4. Short facts shorn of particulars / details not necessary to appreciate this order are that the 'Public Works Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu' ('PWD' for brevity) vide G.O.Ms.No.177 dated 02.02.1968 allotted 'a site admeasuring 90' x 120' in T.S.No.370/1, Block No.2, Ward II of Tiruppur Town' ('said site' for brevity) to IOCL for the purpose of opening a retail outlet on certain conditions. 5. Originally, one Tmt.Sakuntala was allotted dealership by IOCL way back in 1960s for the purpose of running a retail outlet in said site. Subsequently, the deponent of the affidavit in instant writ petition Mr.K.Jagatheeswaran joined her as partner, reconstruction agreement dated 04.03.2011 along with partnership deed dated 09.02.2011 came to be executed and the same stood accepted by IOCL. 6. Originally, one Tmt.Sakuntala was allotted dealership by IOCL way back in 1960s for the purpose of running a retail outlet in said site. Subsequently, the deponent of the affidavit in instant writ petition Mr.K.Jagatheeswaran joined her as partner, reconstruction agreement dated 04.03.2011 along with partnership deed dated 09.02.2011 came to be executed and the same stood accepted by IOCL. 6. The crux and gravamen or in other words the bone of contention in the instant writ petition is quantum and arrears of lease amount for said site which is to be paid by writ petitioner to IOCL which in turn will pay the same to PWD. There is no disputation or disagreement before me as far as this arrangement between writ petitioner and IOCL is concerned. 7. The immediate trigger for instant writ petition is a communication dated 04.03.2020 (bearing reference CBEDO/R/Mahaluxmi-TPR) from IOCL to writ petitioner wherein IOCL has mentioned that PWD vide communication dated 31.01.2020 bearing reference No.829/T2/2018 (1157/2015) has demanded Rs.5,23,18,396/- (Rupees five crores twenty three lakhs eighteen thousand three hundred and ninety six only) towards rental arrears and that the same has to be paid. This 04.03.2020 communication from IOCL to writ petitioner has been assailed in instant writ petition and therefore, the same shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience (though it is a letter / communication). 8. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that impugned order was served on writ petitioner the very next day, i.e., 05.03.2020. Therefore, writ petitioner could have moved this matter in regular sittings of this Court. Though writ petitioner has sent some letters to IOCL post impugned order, there is no explanation for moving this matter as an extremely urgent matter via web hearing later. 9. To be noted, in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that aforesaid communication dated 31.01.2020 from PWD has been attached, but the same has not been placed before me. 10. In the hearing, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that he does not accept the enhancement of rent by PWD though writ petitioner has written a letter dated 22.03.2020 to IOCL seeking one month time to do the needful regarding impugned order. 11. In the hearing, learned counsel for writ petitioner referring to G.O.Ms.No.353, dated 21.07.2000 stated that PWD itself is examining / revisiting the rate of rent / enhancement. 11. In the hearing, learned counsel for writ petitioner referring to G.O.Ms.No.353, dated 21.07.2000 stated that PWD itself is examining / revisiting the rate of rent / enhancement. To be noted, this is way back in 2000. However, learned counsel for writ petitioner referring to a communication dated 27.12.2018 from IOCL to PWD, submitted that IOCL has also sought for reconsideration of enhancement of rent on the same lines. Learned counsel also referred to a portion of a communication signed on 15.10.2019 from Superintending Engineer of PWD (pages 70 to 72 of typed set of papers). Besides all these, learned counsel for writ petitioner drew the attention of this court to an order dated 28.04.2018 made by this court in W.P.Nos.11492 of 2018, etc., It was submitted that the cause title is not available in the order placed before me. It was submitted by learned counsel for writ petitioner that the aforesaid case pertains to enhancement of rent, but it was very fairly submitted that this writ petition and the aforesaid order does not cover said site which is subject matter of instant writ petition. 12. As would be evident from the narrative thus far, impugned order of IOCL itself is owing to communication dated 31.01.2020 from PWD which has been attached to the impugned order, but as mentioned supra, it has not been placed before me. 13. Learned counsel for respondents, notwithstanding the interim counter affidavit of IOCL sworn to by second respondent has pointed out that PWD is a necessary party and that it is imperative that PWD is also to be arrayed as a co-respondent for any meaningful adjudication of this lis. 14. Learned counsel for writ petitioner was repeatedly quipped regarding the submission that PWD is a necessary and proper party. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that PWD is not a necessary party and is not even a proper party. Learned counsel for writ petitioner reiterated his submission twice. 15. As already alluded to supra, though the impugned order was served on writ petitioner on 05.03.2020, there nothing before me in the hearing to explain as to why this court was not approached earlier during regular sittings and as to why instant writ petition was filed only on 09.04.2020 when only extremely urgent matters are being taken up owing to Covid 19 pandemic and lock down scenario. 16. 16. Be that as it may, from the narrative thus far, this court is convinced that PWD is not only a proper party, but also a necessary party. Further, aforementioned submissions made by writ petitioner predicated on communications alluded to supra also make it clear that PWD is a necessary party. This court also reminds itself about the time honoured and well settled legal principle that in a writ of certiorari, all and every party / entity which is likely to be affected by any order that may be passed by the Court should be arrayed as respondent/s. 17. To be noted, if the writ petitioner had taken the stand that PWD is a necessary and / or proper party, this court may have considered grant of leave to file a fresh writ petition or explore other options. To be noted, quantum of enhancement made by PWD is not acceptable by writ petitioner. It is the stated position of writ petitioner that quantum of enhancement is also being put in issue. 18. Narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning thus far leaves me with the considered view that PWD is both a necessary and proper party. To be noted, this is a writ of certiorari, PWD is one of the entities which will be affected if any order is made by this court qua impugned order of IOCL and therefore, this writ petition fails on that short point. 19. Instant writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.