M/s Balaji Gas Company Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:22102

¶3

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRAJAT

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 2352 of 2026

¶7

1 - M/s Balaji Gas Company The Sole Proprietor Krishna Kumar Selarka S/o Late Shri J.D. Selarka Aged About 74 Years R/o Magarpara Road Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through The Area Manager 1st Floor Indian Oil Bhawan Vip Road Telibandha Raipur Tahsil And DistrictRaipur (C.G.).

¶11

2 - Executive Director L.P.G. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Indian Oil Bhavan G-9 All Yavar Jung Marg Bandra (East) District- Mumbai (Maharastra).

¶12

3 - General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Limited (L O C L) Madhya Pradesh State Office Indian Oil Bhawan 16 Arera Hills Jail Road DistrictBhopal (M.P.).

¶13

4 - The Sales Officer Indian Oil Corporation Limited Rajkishore Nagar Indian Oil Colony Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶14

5 - Collector (Food And Civil Supplies Department) District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

		... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)No. 1	:	Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondent/State	:	Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G.

¶16

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

2

Order on Board

11/05/2026

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

¶22

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to ensure the supply of domestic LPG cylinders to the Petitioner in accordance withthe Natural Gas (Supply Regulation) Order, 2026 by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, in the interest of justice. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider and allow the applications /representations filed by the petitioner (Annexure P/10) in accordance with law within the stipulated time, in the interest of justice.

¶23

10.4 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.”

¶24

Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is a duly registered distributor of Indane (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) under Indian Oil Corporation Limited and is entitled to carry on the distributorship business in accordance with the rights guaranteed under the

¶25

3

¶26

Constitution of India and the laws governing the field; it is submitted that the petitioner entered into a Distributorship Agreement dated 28.12.2012 with Indian Oil Corporation Limited for distribution of domestic LPG cylinders and has since then been operating the distributorship in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and the regulatory framework applicable thereto; it is further submitted that the petitioner possesses a valid licence for storage of compressed gas cylinders, which was duly renewed by the competent authority on 06.09.2023 and remains valid up to 30.09.2030, thereby authorising the petitioner to lawfully store and handle compressed gas cylinders subject to compliance with all prescribed statutory and safety norms; according to the petitioner, he presently caters to approximately 14,722 LPG consumers, out of which nearly 14,500 are domestic consumers dependent upon uninterrupted supply of domestic LPG cylinders for their daily household needs; it is further submitted that due to disruptions in liquefied natural gas shipments through the Strait of Hormuz arising out of geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India issued the Natural Gas (Supply Regulation) Order dated 09.03.2026 regulating production, supply, and distribution of natural gas and LPG products, wherein domestic piped natural gas supply, compressed natural gas for transport, LPG production, and other essential operational requirements were categorised under Priority Sector-I

¶27

4

¶28

and made entitled to receive supply up to 100% of their average past six months’ consumption subject to operational availability; it is submitted that the petitioner has been regularly raising indents for domestic LPG cylinders strictly in accordance with the prevailing demand and requirement of his consumers and has also been making advance payments against such indents while maintaining proper stock registers and records of receipt and issuance of filled cylinders to ensure transparency and accountability in stock management; however, despite continuous advance payments amounting to Rs. 7,79,940.65/- made by the petitioner towards procurement of domestic and commercial cylinders, the respondent authorities have failed to supply domestic cylinders proportionate to the indents raised by the petitioner; it is specifically contended that during the month of March the petitioner raised indents for 9,567 domestic cylinders against which only 6,937 cylinders were supplied, and similarly in April indents for 6,948 domestic cylinders were raised whereas only 4,678 cylinders were supplied, thereby causing acute shortage and severe disruption in supply to domestic consumers; it is further submitted that due to such irregular and inadequate supply of LPG cylinders, the petitioner has repeatedly submitted several applications and representations before the concerned authorities requesting immediate corrective measures and adequate allocation of cylinders, however, no effective action has been taken till date; according to the petitioner, the arbitrary and

¶29

5

¶30

disproportionate reduction in supply of LPG cylinders by the respondent authorities is unreasonable, contrary to the Natural Gas (Supply Regulation) Order, 2026, violative of principles of fairness, transparency, and legitimate expectation, and has resulted in serious hardship and inconvenience to thousands of domestic consumers attached to the petitioner’s distributorship, thereby compelling the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a duly authorised distributor of Indane LPG under Indian Oil Corporation Limited and has been lawfully carrying on distribution of domestic LPG cylinders pursuant to the Distributorship Agreement dated 28.12.2012; it is further submitted that the petitioner possesses a valid licence for storage and handling of compressed gas cylinders valid up to 30.09.2030 and is catering to approximately 14,500 domestic consumers who are dependent upon regular and uninterrupted supply of LPG cylinders for their daily household activities; learned counsel submits that despite the petitioner regularly raising indents strictly in accordance with actual consumer demand and despite making substantial advance payments amounting to Rs. 7,79,940.65/-, the respondent authorities have failed to ensure proper and proportionate supply of domestic LPG cylinders; it is contended that the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, by virtue of the Natural Gas (Supply Regulation) Order,

¶32

6

¶33

2026, has specifically provided under Priority Sector-I that domestic LPG and allied essential requirements are entitled to receive supply up to 100% of their average past six months’ consumption subject to operational availability, however, the respondents have acted in complete disregard of the said statutory framework and allocation policy; learned counsel further submits that in March the petitioner raised indents for 9,567 domestic cylinders but only 6,937 cylinders were supplied, while in April indents for 6,948 cylinders were raised but only 4,678 cylinders were supplied, thereby severely affecting the petitioner’s distributorship operations and causing grave hardship to thousands of domestic consumers; it is further submitted that despite repeated representations and requests made before the respondent authorities highlighting the shortage and inadequate allocation of LPG cylinders, no effective action has been taken till date; according to learned counsel, the arbitrary and deficient supply of cylinders by the respondents is contrary to the notified policy of the Government of India, violative of principles of fairness and legitimate expectation, and has resulted in serious inconvenience to domestic consumers, due to which the petitioner is also facing public backlash and hardship, and therefore appropriate directions deserve to be issued by this Hon’ble Court directing the respondents to ensure adequate and proper supply of domestic LPG cylinders in accordance with the prevailing statutory and policy framework.

¶34

7

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 as well as the State authorities opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contends that the actions taken by the respondent authorities are strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy, regulatory framework, and operational constraints, and therefore no interference by this Hon’ble Court is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶37

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further taking into consideration the fact that the grievance raised by the petitioner pertains to supply and allotment of LPG cylinders, which fall within the ambit of essential commodities and directly affect the day-to-day requirements of consumers, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No. 1, namely the Divisional LPG Sales Head of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, to duly consider the grievance and representations submitted by the petitioner and to take an appropriate decision thereupon strictly in accordance with law, applicable policy, and governing regulations within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶41

Judge

¶42

Raghu Jat

M/s Balaji Gas Company v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Balaji Gas Company v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandkeshwar Panigrahi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madhu Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ratnu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Komal Chand Kahar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Sadesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Tainguriya Vs State of Chhattisgarh