Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010055522026 2026:GAU-AS:5776 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1570/2026 LAXMI TRANSPORT AND ANR REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHRI. ASHOK DAS, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, SON OF LATE MATHURA DAS, HAVING MY OFFICE AT SUPREME MOTORS, A T ROAD, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM 781001 2: SHRI ASHOK DAS SON OF LATE MATHURA DAS HAVING MY OFFICE AT SUPREME MOTORS A T ROAD PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM 78100 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, A-WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI110001. 2:THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED (IOCL) THROUGH THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED I0OCL INDIAN OIL AOD STATE OFFICE SECTOR-III NOONMATI GUWAHATI ASSAM- 781020. 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER LPG (OPERATIONS) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED IOCL INDIAN OIL AOD STATE OFFICE Page No.# 2/6 SECTOR-III NOONMATI GUWAHATI ASSAM- 781020. 4:THE MANAGER LPG (OS) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED IOCL INDIAN OIL AOD STATE OFFICE SECTOR-III NOONMATI GUWAHATI ASSAM- 781020. 5:THE DEPUTY MANAGER LPG (FINANCE) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED IOCL INDIAN OIL AOD STATE OFFICE SECTOR-III NOONMATI GUWAHATI ASSAM- 781020 6:THE DEPUTY MANAGER LPG (SALES) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED IOCL INDIAN OIL AOD STATE OFFICE SECTOR-III NOONMATI GUWAHATI ASSAM- 78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K TALUKDAR, SURAJ SONOWAL,MS C DAS Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. S S ROY(C.G.C.)R1,SC, I O C BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 27.04.2026 Heard Mr. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. S. Roy, learned CGC appearing for the respondent no. 1 as well as Mr. M. Sarma, learned Standing Page No.# 3/6 Counsel, IOCL, appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 6. 2. The respondent corporation, i.e., IOCL, published a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 01.03.2025, inviting bids under two-bid system from bidders for a contract-work, “Bulk LPD transportation contract by road for the State of Assam & Meghalaya”. As per the Pre- qualification Criteria prescribed, the bidders must offer at least one owned Tank Truck [TT(s)] as on the original closing date of tender. Along with the same, the bidder should also possess a valid Petroleum Explosive Safety Organization (PESO) license, as on the original date of closing date of tender, for carrying LPG. 3. Subsequently, the respondent corporation published a Corrigendum on 04.04.2025, whereby they brought in a provision to the effect that a bidder can offer more than one TT if the bidder had entered into an Agreement to Sell (ATS) with owner(s) of TT(s) and if the bidder had entered into an ATS, they can offer such TT(s) as owned TT(s). It was provided in the Corrigendum that in the case of TT(s) offered under ATS and formalities of transfer of ownership could not be completed as on the due date of tender process initiated by the NIT dated 01.03.2025, both the seller and the purchaser (bidder) were required to submit an affidavit as per the prescribed format indicating the same. It is provided that such TT(s) shall be considered as the ‘owned’ trucks of the bidders for bid qualification and allocation purpose. It is provided that in case the bidder fails to submit the required documents with change of names in the Registration Certificate and PESO license within 4 months of issuance of Letter of Intent (LoI), suitable penal action would be taken, which would include forfeiture in EMD and caution money and also, termination order of such TT(s) and blacklisting of such TT(s). It was also mentioned in the Corrigendum that under no circumstances such timeline would be extended. In terms of the aforesaid NIT, the petitioners offered its own truck, i.e., TT(s) as well as ATS. On Subsequent evaluation of the bids, the petitioners were issued with Letter of Acceptance (LoA) on 16.09.2025 and thereafter, the petitioners were also issued with work order for the concerned work. However, in terms of the above mentioned Corrigendum, the petitioners could not place the Registration Certificates as well as the PESO licenses in respect of the TT, wherein the petitioners had entered into ATS, within the stipulated time Page No.# 4/6 as mentioned in the Corrigendum. 4. In view of the aforesaid, a show-cause notice dated 05.03.2026 was served on the petitioners, putting the concerned TT of the petitioners under suspension with immediate effect. It was mentioned in the show-cause notice that the petitioners has failed to submit the Registration Certificate and the PESO license within the stipulated period of 4 months from the date of LoA and therefore, it would call for action as stipulated specifically in the clause mentioned in the Corrigendum. Faced with such show-cause notice and immediate suspension, the petitioners have approached this Court by challenging such suspension. 5. Notice was issued in the instant case on 19.03.2026, wherein, the interim prayer of the petitioners was rejected after hearing the parties and due consideration of the matter. 6. Mr. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under the scheme- category of ATS, an existing transporter under the earlier tender who entered into an agreement for sale with the bidder under the present tender for sale of TT(s), upon submission of affidavits in terms of the tender and payment of necessary deposits, the transfer of RC and PESO license, an amendment of PESO license were to be completed within a period of 4 months of issuance of LoA. He submits that before the issuance of the LoA in favour of the petitioners, the IOCL extended the contracts of the existing transporters till 31.10.2025, whereas, the LoA, in respect of the petitioners was issued on 16.09.2025 and thereafter, work order was issued. However, since the contracts with the existing transporters/contractors were extended up to 31.12.2025, the exercise of transfer of RC and PESO license could not be completed within 4 months of LoA. Accordingly, the petitioners, through its association, vide an e-mail dated 15.01.2026, sought time up to 31.01.2026 to complete the exercise of transfer of the RC as well as the PESO license. However, no response was received to the aforesaid e-mail. However, by a final reminder dated 15.01.2026 (at 5.32 PM), the IOCL directed the petitioners to complete formalities by 15.01.2026 itself (9 PM). 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, thereafter, the petitioners completed the transfer of RC and PESO license before 31.01.2026 but, despite such Page No.# 5/6 compliance, the show-cause notice dated 05.03.2026 was issued to him. The learned counsel submits that in spite of his submission of reply to the show-cause notice, no action has been taken by the respondent corporation till date. He submits that the respondent corporation is aware of the extension of the existing contracts with whom the petitioners had entered for ATS for the concerned TT. The learned counsel submits that the exercise of completion of necessary formalities for registration of the RC and the PESO license were due to the difficulties faced by the petitioners in view of extension of the term of existing contracts of the proposed sellers, i.e., the existing contractors and the consequential delay, precisely happened due to the aforesaid reason and no fault of the petitioners. 7. Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the IOCL submits that the petitioners has not challenged the Corrigendum though they were aware of the timeline prescribed in the aforesaid Corrigendum and therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioners in the instant petition, cannot be granted to the petitioners. 8. This Court has heard the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties. 9. It is seen that while issuing notice in the instant case, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court has denied the interim protection sought for by the petitioners. 10. While taking up the matter today, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the reply to the show-cause notice of the petitioners is yet to be responded by the respondent Corporation, a direction should be issued to the IOCL for considering the reply and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in that aspect. The learned counsel further submits that after disposal of the reply of the petitioners, at least a week’s time should be granted to him so that if the petitioners are aggrieved, the petitioners can approach this Court against the aforesaid disposal of reply. 11. This Court is not inclined to pass any such protection that is sought for by the petitioners in view of the fact that the learned Coordinate Bench has already considered the prayer of any interim relief that could have been passed in the instant petition of the Page No.# 6/6 petitioners. However, taking into account the entire facts of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the IOCL to consider and thereafter, disposed of the reply submitted by the petitioners against the show-cause notice dated 05.03.2026 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the instant order. 12. It is needless to say that after due consideration of the reply, a reasoned order as to the fate of such reply, would be passed the respondent IOCL. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to submit a copy of this order before the IOCL for the needful. 13. In terms of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant