Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010121652026 2026:GAU-AS:11621 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/232/2026 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND 3 ORS. IOCL, A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE, THROUGH ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER LPG, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, SECTOR III, NOONMATI, GUWAHATI - 781020, ASSAM. 2: THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (LPG) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED (IOCL) INDIAN OIL BHAVAN SECTOR – III, NOONMATI, GUWAHATI – 781020, ASSAM. 3: THE GENERAL MANAGER (LPG OPERATIONS) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED NOONMATI, GUWAHATI -781020, ASSAM. 4: THE PLANT MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED LPG BOTTLING PLANT, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND VERSUS M/S B K CONSTRUCTION AND ANR. A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT N.S. AVENUE, HOSPITAL ROAD, SILCHAR, PIN - 788005, ASSAM. 2:UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS JANPATH ROAD, NEW DELHI - 11000 For the appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. M. Sarma, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. K. L. Gupta, Advocate Page No.# 2/5 –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 17.08.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned Advocate for the appellants/Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) and three others, and Mr. B. Charaborty, assisted by Mr. K. L Gupta, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 06.05.2026, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 479/2026, whereby it has been held that the authorities of the appellant/corporation had arbitrarily denied the respondent a real, meaningful and effective opportunity of being heard before being visited with the drastic penalty of “Holiday Listing” for a period of one year. It was also held that the decision to put the respondent No. 1 on Holiday List was based on the “Holiday Listing Guidelines” dated 19.01.2023, which was issued much after execution of the Purchase Orders. Furthermore, Non-disclosure of the findings in the Vigilance report and the Joint Inspection report to the respondent No. 1, but placing reliance on the said reports to reach the satisfaction for taking such a drastic measure was in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, the order passed by the appellants/IOCL authorities on 22.01.2026 was set aside/quashed. This case arises out of a contractual dispute between the appellants and he respondent No. 1. The appellants had floated a tender for a rate contract covering Page No.# 3/5 capital and revenue works at various facilities under the Tinsukia Divisional Office of the IOCL. The respondent No. 1 was declared a successful bidder and was issued Purchase Order for a value of approximately Rs. 25.00 Crores. The work was commenced by the respondent No. 1 on 24.08.2022 and was successfully completed on 07.12.2022. The records reveal that the appellants had issued a Completion Certificate confirming that the work had been executed as per the drawings and specifications. The Defect Liability Period also expired without any complaint from end of the appellants. However, nearly three years later, on 07.10.2025 the appellants issued a Show Cause Notice to the respondent No. 1 alleging that on a subsequent inspection, it was found that certain additional items, not covered by the original Purchase Order, had also been executed, resulting in excess payment of approx. Rs. 3.23 Lakhs, excluding GST. By invoking Clause 2.1(a) of the Holiday Listing Guidelines dated 19.01.2023, the appellants/IOCL issued a Show Cause Notice dated 07.10.2025 asking the respondent No. 1 to explain as to why it should be not debarred from participating in future contracts and not be removed from the list of the Approved Vendors of the IOCL. Pursuant to the Show Cause notice referred to above, a reply was filed by the respondent No. 1, contending primarily that it was a works contract executed under the continuous supervision of the IOCL officials. If any modifications were carried out in the works, it was only on the on- site verbal instructions of the authorized engineer/officials of the IOCL. It was only after the measurements were jointly taken and verified/certified Page No.# 4/5 by the officials/Engineer concerned, the bills were checked and finally paid. Chiefly, the contention of the respondent No. 1 was that after expiry of the Defect Liability Period and after satisfactory completion of the contract work as also after use of the facilities for three years, raising such allegation of excess payment and putting the firm on the Holiday List was unjust and arbitrary. On 22.01.2026, the appellants/IOCL passed the impugned order placing the respondent No. 1 on the Holiday List for a period of one year. Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 has argued that the Completion Certificate issued by the IOCL itself proves the satisfactory execution and completion of the contract work. The Show Cause Notice, therefore, is absolutely arbitrary. The other contention of Mr. Chakraborty is that the Holiday Listing guidelines, which came into force from 19.01.2023, could not have been retrospectively applied to a contract work which had been completed in 2022. It has also been contended that as a contractor, the respondent No. 1 never hesitated from carrying out extra work on verbal instructions and assurance of the site engineer that formal work order would follow, which actually never followed. However, no extra amount for such additional work was ever claimed or received by the respondent No. 1, beyond what was necessary for the sustainability of the project. Lastly, the subsequent verification/inspection was carried out without intimating the respondent No. 1 and the enquiry report was prepared behind its back and such a drastic measure of putting the firm on Holiday Page No.# 5/5 List was taken without giving the firm any opportunity of effective hearing. The learned Single Judge, after framing multiple questions, held that the respondent No. 1 was denied any meaningful opportunity of being heard before passing of the order putting the respondent No. 1 on Holiday List for one year. It was also held that the Holiday Listing guidelines, which was relied upon for putting the respondent No. 1 on Holiday List for one year, had been issued long after completion of the work/Purchase Order. That apart, the learned Single Judge found that the non-disclosure of the findings contained in the Vigilance Report and the Joint Inspection Report to the respondent No. 1, while relying on such reports to justify the Holiday Listing and recovery of the alleged excess payment, constitute a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and fairness. We are in absolute agreement with the reasoning employed by the learned Single Judge. No perversity or faultline can be noticed in the impugned judgment. Resultantly, we have no option but to dismiss this appeal in limine. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed However, there shall be no order for costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant