Jahan Uddin Borbhuyan and 15 Ors. Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010051902025

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:2754

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1458/2025

¶6

JAHAN UDDIN BORBHUYAN AND 15 ORS SON OF ABDUL SATTAR BORBHUYAN, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. PUB BANDARMELA INDANE GRAMIN VITRAK, HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT PUB BANDARMELA, P.O. - CHARING, P.S. MURAJHAR, HOJAI- 782439, ASSAM.

¶7

2: M/S ELEGANT GAS SERVICE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT L.N ROAD P.O. AND DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM - 783101 REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI JAYANTA ROY SON OF LATE SUDHANYA KUMAR ROY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶8

3: GIRISH HALOI SON OF HEMCHANDRA HALOI PROPRIETOR OF M/S HARIBHANGA INDANE GRAMIN VITRAK HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT HARIBHANGA TIHU ASSAM- 78L378

¶9

4: UDANGSRI NARZARY WIFE OF JOGENDRA NARZARY PROPRIETOR OF M/S. BARBHERA INDANE GRAMIN VITRAK HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT VILLAGE-BARBHERA P.O.- CHECHA PANI TAMULPUR ASSAM - 781360

¶10

5: BIMAL CHANDRA DAS SON OF LATE HAREKRISHNA DAS PROPRIETOR OF M/S

¶11

Page No.# 2/7

¶12

MAA GAS SERVICE HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT P.O AND P.S DHING NAGAON ASSAM-781360

¶13

6: M/S SHANKARDEV GAS AGENCY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT SIXMILE RL COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR PANJABARI ROAD-782123 REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SMTI. ANINDITA GOSWAMI DAUGHTER OF SRI GAKUL CHANDRA GOSWAMI AGED ABOUT-37YEARS 7: M/S TEZPUR GAS AGENCY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT MAIN ROAD TEZPUR-784001 ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI SPONDON HAZARIKA SON OF LATE TRIDIP KUMAR HAZARIKA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 8: KALYAN SAIKIA SON OF LATE PURNAKANTA SAIKIA AGED ABOUT- 67 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. CHARIALI GAS AGENCY HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT NH 15 NEAR HDFC BANK BISWANATH CHARIALI-784 176 ASSAM 9: TARULATA BARUAH WIFE OF LATE SAMPIT BARUAH PROPRIETOR OF M/S. LAKHIMPUR INDANE GRAMIN VITARAK HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT VILL KAITHPARA LAKHIMPUR DARRANG 784525 ASSAM

¶14

10: MAMONI DUARAH DAUGHTER OF LATE ANNADA TALUKDAR PROPRIETOR OF M/S. PRIYAM GAS SERVICE HAVING HER PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT KALBARI

¶15

Page No.# 3/7

¶16

ABHAYPUR NORTH GUWAHATI-781031 ASSAM 11: M/S CHOWDHURY GAS SERVICE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT DHING- 782123 NAGAON ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PAFTNERS MD. BADARUDDUZA CHOWDHURY SON OF LATE MOHAMMAD ALI AGED ABOUT-47 YEARS. 12: MUSTT SHAHNAZ PERVEEN WIFE OF ABDUL HAQUE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SHAMIM INDANE GRAMIN VITRAK HAVING HER PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT BECHIMARI DARRANG ASSAM-784514 13: MOINA TRISHNA RASHMI MESH WIFE OF LATE LALIT MESH PROPRIETOR OF M/S. NANDINI GAS AGENCY HAVING HER PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT BOKO KAMRUP ASSAM-781123 14: PALLAVI LAHKAR DAUGHTER OF LATE MUNINDRA SHINGHA LAHKAR PROPRIETOR OF M/S. BINAPANI RANDHAN GAS HAVING HER PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT RANGIA HOSPITAL ROAD-781354 ASSAM 15: M/S KESHAB INDANE AGENCY A PAFTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT VIP ROAD MEGZINE OPPOSITE KRM APAFTMENT P/O HENGRABARI-781036 ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI DIPANKAR SINGHA LAHKAR SON OF LATE MUNINDRA SHINGHA LAHKAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶17

16: TANKESWAR NATH SON OF LATE DAMBARUDHAR NATH PROPRIETOR OF M/S. MANSREE INDANE GRAMIN VITRAK

¶18

Page No.# 4/7

¶19

HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT VILLAGE AND P.O MADHUKUCHI KAMRUP- 781354 ASSAM

¶20

VERSUS

¶21

THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND 3 ORS. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INDIAN OIL BHAWAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA(EAST), MUMBAI- 400051.

¶22

2:THE INDIAN OIL -ASSAM OIL DIVISION INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. NORTH GUWAHATI LPG BOTTLING PLANT P.O.-COLLEGE NAGAR ABHOYPUR NORTH GUWAHATI GUWAHATI-781031(ASSAM)

¶23

3:THE DY GENERAL MANAGER LPG -SALES NORTH GUWAHATI LPG BOTTLING PLANT P

¶24

O.-COLLEGE NAGAR ABHOYPUR NORTH GUWAHATI GUWAHATI-78 103 1(ASSAM)

¶25

4:THE DY GENERAL MANAGER (PLANT) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. NORTH GUWAHATI LPG BOTTLING PLANT P.O.-COLLEGE NAGAR ABHOYPUR NORTH GUWAHATI GUWAHATI-78 103 1(ASSAM

¶26

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K K MAHANTA (Sr. Advocate), S. K. GUPTA,MR. P SARMA,MR T C DAS,MR. O P BHATI

¶27

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, I O C,

¶28

Page No.# 5/7

¶29

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Date : 17.03.2025

¶32

Heard Mr. K. K. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. O. P. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Gohain, learned counsel, for all the respondents.

¶33

2. The petitioners are sole proprietors as well as partnership firms for sale of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) known as “Indane”. The petitioners before this Court are aggrieved with the Communications dated 13.02.2025, 18.02.2025, 19.02.2025, 20.02.2025, 24.02.2025, 28.02.2025 and 01.03.2025 issued by the DGM (Plant), North Guwahati, wherein, it is stated that the Indian Oil – AOD, Indian Oil Corporation Limited had a review of credits/debits passed to distributors/transporters on account of Market Return cylinders in the year 2023-24, which was carried out for North Guwahati BP. In the said review, it was revealed that the credit has been passed to the petitioners account for empty cylinders returned to the plant and the said credit was incorrectly passed into the petitioners’ account, since the ERV slips were not signed either by the transporter/distributor representative or by both, which is in violation of the prescribed Policy. The petitioners were accordingly directed to submit their explanation (with proofs/documents) within 7 (seven) days as to why the debit/deduction should not be raised against them.

¶34

3. On receipt of the aforesaid Communications the petitioners made their separate replies on different dates before the Deputy General Manager (Plant),

¶35

Page No.# 6/7

¶36

North Guwahati requesting for extension of time to submit an effective explanation with supporting documents.

¶37

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents are yet to respond to the request made by the petitioners and they are apprehending that the authorities would be deducting the amount specified in their separate Communications made to the petitioners.

¶38

5. Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of all the respondents submits that the petitioners could not have filed a joint petition inasmuch as the cause of action for all the petitioners are different. He also submits that the respondents are yet to debit/deduct the amounts specified in the separate Communications and are awaiting the reply of the petitioners.

¶39

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court proposes to dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents to grant an extension of 30 (thirty) days w.e.f. today to the petitioners for making their replies to the Communications made to them. The petitioners shall file their individual replies before the concerned authorities within the said extended period. The respondent authorities may also supply any documents that the petitioners may ask for, to enable them to submit their respective replies.

¶40

7. Till the reply is filed within the stipulated period of 30 (thirty) days w.e.f. today and a decision is taken by the concerned authorities, it is made clear that there shall be no debit/deduction of the amount specified in the Communications dated 13.02.2025, 18.02.2025, 19.02.2025, 20.02.2025, 24.02.2025, 28.02.2025 and 01.03.2025. While considering the reply made by the petitioners, the respondents are at liberty to give a personal hearing to the petitioners.

¶41

Page No.# 7/7

¶42

8. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed

¶43

of.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Jahan Uddin Borbhuyan and 15 Ors. v. the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahan Uddin Borbhuyan and 15 Ors. v. the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Debajyoti Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S Macrocosm Builders Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Batgaon Nayapara Meen Samabai Samittee Limited Vs the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited and 6 Ors.

Eastern Envo Protect Vs Monalismr Abhijit Sarmaa Goswami

Harold Inghi and 17 Ors. Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors.

M/S Indhan and 32 Ors. Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors.