Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010260142025 2025:GAU-AS:15969 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6652/2025 LUIT TRANSPORT AND ASSOCIATES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VILLAGE- KOKJAR, MIRZA, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY SRI SANJIB CHOUDHURY, SON OF PRADYUMNA SINGHA CHOUDURY, RESIDENT OF MIRZA NARAYANPUR, P.O- MIRZA, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781125 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, A-WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INDIAN OIL BHAVAN G-9 ALI YAVAR MARG BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI-400051 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (LPG) INDIAN OIL AOD STATE OFFICE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION SECTOR III NOONMATI GUWAHATI KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PIN-781021 Page No.# 2/7 4:THE DIRECTOR MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS (MVL) SECTION TRANSPORT BHAWAN 1 PARLIAMENTARY STREET NEW DELHI-110001 5:M/S TATA MOTORS LTD 24 BOMBAY HOUSE HOMI MODY STREET MUMBAI-40000 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. R.M. Deka, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. M. Sarma, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 24.11.2025 Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sarma, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. None appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4 when the matter is called. 3. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, notice upon the respondent No. 5 is hereby dispensed Page No.# 3/7 with. 4. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the issuance of a show cause notice dated 11.11.2025 by the Chief General Manager (LPG) of Indian Oil AOD State Office. The case of the petitioner herein is that on the basis of a tender for transportation of Indane LPG cylinders in vertical position on unit rate basis Ex- Sarpara LPG Bottling Plant under Indian Oil AOD State Office, the petitioner participated in the said tender process and was issued a Letter of Acceptance on 06.04.2024. The petitioner placed 17 vehicles and the registration numbers, ownership details, engine numbers as well as the Chassis numbers were duly mentioned in the Letter of Acceptance. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the registration certificates which have been issued to the petitioner, the maker of the vehicles in question were categorically mentioned to be Tata Motors Limited. 5. Be that as it may, a show cause notice has been issued dated 11.11.2025 based on a communication issued by the Tata Motors Limited whereby it was informed that they are not the manufacturers of the Chassis in respect to the vehicles provided by the petitioner and as such it has been alleged that the petitioner has violated tender Clause No. 1.15 under Chapter-7 of the Standard Tender Conditions and the petitioner therefore was asked to show cause, as to why, action should not be taken Page No.# 4/7 against the petitioner for violation of the Terms and Conditions of the tender in question. It is further seen that the petitioner was also granted time to submit the reply to the show cause notice on or before 26.11.2025. 6. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that taking into account the materials on record, more particularly, the registration certificates as well as the certificates downloaded from the m-Parivahan website, the question of issuance of the show cause notice is nothing, but an abuse of the process and as such, the impugned show cause notice is required to be interfered with. 7. Per contra, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the show cause notice has been issued to ascertain certain facts and the petitioner therefore ought to reply and place relevant materials before the Respondent Authorities. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that it is a trite principle of law that the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain such writ petition challenging the show cause proceedings, more so, in a case of a present nature where certain facts are required to be ascertained before any decision is taken. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents therefore submitted that in the instant case no Page No.# 5/7 decision has yet been taken and it shall be taken only after taking into account the materials available with the respondents and if the petitioner submits the reply with proper justification, the same shall be duly considered. 8. This Court having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and having also perused the materials on record, is of the opinion that the show cause notice which has been issued to the petitioner is nothing but providing the petitioner an opportunity to explain, as to whether, there is any violation to the Terms and Conditions of the Tender. It is the opinion of this Court that without any factual adjudication being done, it would not be proper on the part of this Court at this stage to interfere with the said show cause notice. 9. This Court further takes note of the submission made by Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel who submitted that though the show cause notice was issued on the basis of a communication issued by the Tata Motors Limited, the said communication was not provided to the petitioner and as such the petitioner would not have a reasonable opportunity to submit the reply. 10. Mr. M. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 during the course of the hearing Page No.# 6/7 provided a copy of the communication dated 11.08.2025 issued by the Tata Motors Limited to Mr. R.M. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 11. Taking into account above, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The petitioner herein is given the liberty to submit the reply to the show cause notice dated 11.11.2025 within 10 (ten) days from the date of the present order i.e. on or before 08.12.2025. (ii) The Respondent Authorities, if any show cause reply is submitted within the period as above mentioned, shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and thereupon shall decide the said show cause proceedings in accordance with law. 12. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learner Senior Counsel submitted that during this period when the show cause proceedings are undertaken, the suspension of the petitioner vide the impugned show cause notice dated 11.11.2025 requires to be stayed. 13. This Court is not inclined to pass any such orders. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to request the Respondent Authorities, more particularly, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 seeking Page No.# 7/7 stay of the suspension order and the Respondent Authorities would be at liberty to consider the same in accordance with law. 14. Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach this Court, if there is no appellate provision, in the circumstance the show cause proceedings are decided against the petitioner or within a reasonable time the show cause proceedings are not decided. JUDGE Comparing Assistant