2026:JHHC:10767 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.5004 of 2018 ------ M/s Tara Enterprises, a Partnership Firm, having its work and office at Set Surajmal Jalan Road, Bompas Town, P.O., P.S. and District Deoghar, through one of its Partner Ram Parvesh Ram, son of Late Chandradeep Ram, resident of Khorado Road, Bompas Town, B. Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District Deoghar. … … Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary (Marketing), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, having its Office at Sashtri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, P.O. & P.S. Sansad Marg, District Central Delhi, New Delhi - 110 001. 2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, having its Office at Indian Oil Bhawan, 254 - C Dr. Anibasant Road, PRABHA DEVI, P.O. & P.S. Prabha Devi, District Mumbai, Maharashtra. 3. Regional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Eastern Region- I, having its Office at P.O. & P.S. Shakespeare Sarini, Kolkata-700016, West Bengal. 4. Deputy General Manager (Sales), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, having its Office at P.O. & P.S. Shakespeare Sarini, Kolkata-700016, West Bengal. 5. Deputy General Manager (Sales), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, having its Office at P.O. & P.S. Shakespeare Sarini, Kolkata-700016, West Bengal. 6. Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, having its Office at Indane Area Office, 2nd Floor, Pulsar Plaza, Line Tank Road, P.O., P.S. and District Ranchi. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, Sr. Panel Counsel Mr. Romit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate Mr. Anish Kamal, Advocate Ms. Kanu Priya, Advocate ------ 06/ 15.04.2026 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 2026:JHHC:10767 2 "(i) For issuance of appropriate order/orders in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order as contained in Letter bearing Reference No. RAO / TARA dated 05.02.2018 (Annexure-6 Series at relevant page 90) issued under the signature of Mr. Harish Deepak, Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, whereby and where under a penalty of Rs. 38,806.88 has been imposed on the alleged grounds of discrepancies / irregularities in supply of LPG Cylinders by the petitioner Agency purportedly in exercise of power under "Marketing Discipline Guideline, 2017 for LPG" for taking the penal action in cases of established irregularities, which is wholly arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. (ii) For issuance of appropriate order / orders commanding the official Respondents of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited to act in accordance law in the matter of imposition of any penalty on alleged irregularity against the petitioner after affording full opportunity of personal hearing and not to act in vindictive manner against the petitioner on the basis of motivated and unsubstantiated Report of minor irregularity in delayed delivery of supply to one of the consumer. (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ / writs, order / orders in the nature of certiorari quashing the Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2017 (Annexure-5) issued by the ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India containing the proposed penalties for establishment major / minor irregularities committed by the LPG distributors as the said guidelines are arbitrary and without jurisdiction and in the teeth of well established legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as the penalty proposed to be levied under the said guidelines against erring LPG distributor does not contain any mandatory opportunity of personal hearing to the person concerned before taking any action, no procedure for determining the fault / irregularities is prescribed therein and the said guidelines does not contained any provision of Appeal against minor penalties imposed under the impugned guidelines to the aggrieved person, which is in the nature of quasi penal 2026:JHHC:10767 3 charge and punishment and hence bad in law." 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. The petitioner - Firm deals with the business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Distributorship, in the District of Deoghar. 3.1. On the allegation of delay in refill supply to the customer, the petitioner - Firm was show caused vide order dated 19.01.2018 (Annexure-6 [Series] to the writ petition). 3.2. The petitioner filed his reply to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice on 23.01.2018. 3.3. Ultimately, vide impugned order as contained in Letter bearing Reference No.RAO / Tara dated 05.02.2018 (Annexure-6 [Series] to the writ petition), the show cause reply of the petitioner was rejected and the petitioner-Firm was imposed with the penalty of Rs.38,806.88/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Six and Eighty Eight Paise). 3.4. In the aforesaid impugned order, it had also been held that this is a minor irregularity in last two years, which attracts the aforesaid punishment. 4. After going through the aforesaid impugned order, I find that the same is a cryptic and unreasoned order. No reason has been assigned as to why the reply of the petitioner has been rejected. The ground for discarding the defence of the petitioner - Firm, has also not been mentioned. 4.1. When a Noticee gives a reply to the show cause and takes some defence, it is incumbent upon the Authority to deal with such defence and give at least some decision as to why the said defence is not accepted. 4.2. In this case, no reason has been given as to why the defence of the petitioner-Firm has not been accepted by the respondents. 4.3. Thus, the impugned order as contained in Letter bearing Reference No.RAO / Tara dated 05.02.2018 (Annexure-6 2026:JHHC:10767 4 [Series] to the writ petition) being an unreasoned order, is set aside. 4.4. However, the matter is remitted to the Authority i.e. respondent No.6 - Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Ranchi, to pass a reasoned order, considering the defence of the petitioner, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and communicate the reasoned order to the petitioner. 4.5. If the respondents do not accept the defence of the petitioner, reasons for not accepting the same must be incorporated in the said reasoned order. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 15th April, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 18.04.2026