Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010238892025 2025:GAU-AS:14563 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6131/2025 M/S TITABOR GAS AGENCY AN AUTHORIZED LPG DISTRIBUTOR UNDER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, HAVING ITS DISTRIBUTORSHIP AT TITABOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI AMRIT KUMAR MILI, S/O LATE CHENIRAM ILI RESIDENT OF SIRAM MISING GAON, TEOK DISTRICT - JORHAT, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, KARTAVYA BHAVAN, JANPATH,NEW DELHI - 110003 2:INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED (ASSAM OIL DIVISION) REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INDIAN OIL BHAWAN G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI-781005. 3:THE DIVISIONAL LPG HEAD INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED INDANE AREA OFFICE TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN-786125. 4:THE CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION Page No.# 2/5 HOUSE NO. 216 2ND FLOOR ABOVE IDBI CHANDMARI ASSAM-781021. 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER JORHAT DISTRICT ASSA For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Borthakur, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. G. Pegu, CGC Ms. U. Das, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. M. Sarma, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 29.10.2025 Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. G. Pegu, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 4; Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sarma, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court apprehending that on account of the non-renewal of the license Page No.# 3/5 not being given to the petitioner by the Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organization (PESO), the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may take steps for discontinuing with the supply of Liquefied Petroleum Gas cylinders to the petitioner in terms with the Memorandum of Agreement dated 16.10.2017 and as such the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is a distributor of the respondent No. 2 and in that regard an Indane (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) Distributorship (Domestic & Commercial) Agreement was entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. For the purpose of running such distributorship, it is necessary that the petitioner possesses a valid license issued by the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO). The petitioner was duly issued such a license which was valid up to 30.09.2025. Prior to the expiry of the said license, the petitioner duly applied for its renewal on 09.09.2025 and in that regard, an acknowledgment has also been issued by the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO). However, till date the said license has neither been renewed nor has the application been rejected. It is however the case of the petitioner that if the renewed license is not placed before the respondent No. 2 on or before 30.10.2025 there is a likelihood that the petitioner may not be supplied in terms with Page No.# 4/5 the Distributorship Agreement. It is under such circumstances, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in terms with the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2016, it is the mandate of Rule 55(5) that upon seeking renewal of a license or revalidation of an approval, the license shall be deemed to have been in existence till such date the application is not rejected or not renewed. He therefore submitted that appropriate directions, therefore, be passed against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to continue the supply in terms with the Distributorship Agreement pending such decision in respect to the application seeking renewal of the license before the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO). 5. Per contra, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the petitioner does not have any cause of action, taking into account that there is no decision taken by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to discontinue the supply in terms with the Distributorship Agreement with the petitioner, inasmuch, as it is deemed in terms with Rule 55(5) of the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2016, that such license shall continue to be in existence till such decision is taken by the Competent Authority. Page No.# 5/5 6. Mr. G. Pegu, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 submitted that the petitioner has applied for renewal of the license only on 09.09.2025 and the same is under process. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it is the opinion of this Court that the apprehension of the petitioner do not seem to be valid inasmuch as there is no decision taken on the part of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to not supply in terms of the Distributorship Agreement dated 16.10.2017. 8. This Court further finds it pertinent to observe that in terms with Rule 55(5) of the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2016, it is the mandate of law that a license shall continue to remain valid if an application seeking renewal is filed and such decision on the application if rejected is not intimated to the petitioner or renewed. 9. This Court in view of the submissions made by the learner Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the observations made herein above, closes the instant writ petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant