1 CGHC010204682017 2026:CGHC:36523 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1637 of 2017 M/s Balaji Gas Company Through The Sole Proprietor Krishna Kumar Selarka, S/o Late Shri J. D. Selarka, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Magarpara Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through The Area Manager, 1st Floor, Indian Oil Bhawan, V I P Road, Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. The Sales Officer, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Rajkishore Nagar Indian Oil Colony, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of Annexure P/1 letter dated 05.05.2017 issued by Respondent No.1/ Oil Corporation Limited alleging that multiple gas connection has been released to the petitioner under Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana, who is distributor of LPG product wherein it is directed for recovery of amount from the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that before assessing the factual matrix of the case, the respondent No.12 issued notice to the petitioner SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.08.18 17:00:01 +0530 2 without giving any opportunity of hearing and the said issuance of notice is in violation of principle of natural justice and would pray for quashing of notice dated 05.05.2017. He would further submit that during pendency of petition, respondent No.1 has recovered the alleged losses caused to the petitioner under Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana and recovered Rs. 9,61,075/ and therefore, he would pray for allowing the writ petition. He would further submits that during pendency of the writ petition certain new facts is brought to his notice, therefore, he may be allowed to make fresh representation and would also pray for issuance of direction to the respondent No.1 to re- examining the matter afresh. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner but he has not availed the same and has not submitted the reply. He would further submit that guideline issued by Government of India, Ministry of Natural Gas regarding Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana has duly been complied with and would submit that the action of respondent No.1 is legal, justified and does not call for interference by this Court. 4. I have head learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Considering the submission made by counsel for the petitioner the petition is disposed of directing the petitioner that he will submit reply of the notice to Indian Oil Corporation Limited within four week with regard to notice issued to them on 05.05.202017 and all other shortcoming regarding duplication of gas connection under Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana and respondent inturn will decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with the guideline issued by the Government of India. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not commented anything on the allegation levelled by the respondent or the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to 3 submit the representation within four weeks from today and the respondents is also directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within 8 weeks from the date of filing of the representation. 7. With this direction the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh