JUDGMENT CFA No. 38/2013 Learned counsel for the parties seek adjournment. Adjourned as prayed for. List this appeal for consideration on 27.09.2022. OWP No. 395/2019 Mr. Altaf Haqani, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. H. Aman Ali, Advocate for respondents. 1. Respondent no. 3, Deputy General Manager (RS) Divisional Office, Jammu, vide communication bearing Ref No. JDO/RS/Soura dated 06.03.2019, addressed to M/S Soura Filling Station Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Soura, Srinagar, requested to allow automation at its RO to complete work for ensuring smooth supplies to customers as the same was mandatory at all RO's as per Government MOU, as the automation helps in serving the customers to their satisfaction and that the automation work is required to be completed by 01.04.2019. 2. The aforementioned communication was challenged in this writ by petitioner Saleema Pandit, claiming to be the partner of this Retail Outlet Dealership, situated at Leh-Srinagar, road with one Shri Sukhbir Singh, who had retired from the business way back in the year 1982, and that this retail outlet had been set up by the petitioner on a Plot of land measuring 100x100 feet situated at Buchpora, District Ganderbal, on Srinagar-Leh road under survey No. 675 leased out by the landlord namely Sheikh Ali Mohammad in her favour in the year 1980. 3. The above said lease of the land in question is the subject matter of the Civil First Appeal, before this Court and the Court had passed an order of Stay, way back on 19.03.2013, which is still in force and the respondent cannot enforce the installation of automation plant as the pre-condition for continuance of supplies with effect from 01.04.2019. This petition seems to have been connected with the appeal filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently argued that the India Oil Corporation, is hard pressed for automation of the petitioner's outlet as the same has been adopted all over India, in view of the memorandum of understanding between the Corporation and the Government of India, for affording better services to the customers and it was prayed that the petition be dismissed, so that the automation of the outlet be made by the respondent-corporation at the earliest so as to provide better customer service. 5. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on being confronted as to why this automated service is not being provided on the plea of the pendency of an appeal between the petitioner and the owners of the land whereon the petrol outlet had been set up. Mr. Altaf Haqani, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted at the bar, that the petitioner has no objection in automation of the outlet and was aggrieved of only the threat of not continuing with the supplies by the India Oil Corporation. 6. Mr. M. A. Chashoo, Advocate appearing for the respondents in the connected appeal bearing CFA No. 38/2013, has opposed that in view of the dispute between the parties, the process of automation will be against the interests of the respondents who are owners of the land where this oil outlet has been set up by the petitioner. 7. Since the public as customers shall be suffering for not having automated service at the petitioner's outlet, therefore, it is in the interest of justice, that the service is made available by the respondents at the petitioners outlet and the petitioner cannot take exception to that extent on the plea of the pendency of the case between the petitioner and the landlords on the land where the petrol pump is set up, especially when landlords who are party to the appeal, are not party in this writ petition. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is found to be without any merit and substance, and is liable to be is dismissed. The respondents shall be at liberty to install the automation of M/S Soura Filling Station and the petitioner shall not create any hindrance in the same. 9. The writ petition is thus dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.