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

SON OF LATE NARENDRA NATH DAS PROPRIETOR OF OI M/S. JAGANNATH INDANE GRAMIN VITARAK HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT GERJAIPAM P.O. AND P.S.- GERJAIPAM PIN-782426 NAGAON.

¶10

3: MINATI BARUAH

¶11

WIFE OF LATE LOGEN BARUAH PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SIKHA HAVING HER PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT BHARALUMUKH NEAR SLUICE GATE KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI-781009.

¶12

4: M/S VASUDEVA GAS CONNECTION

¶13

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT LUMDING DISTRICT-HOJAI ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI SUSHIL KR. VASUDEVA SON OF LATE RAM ASRA VASUDEVA AGED ABOUT- 71 YEARS.

5: PANKAJ BORAH

MOHAN CH. BORAH

Page No.# 2/7

PROPRIETOR OF M/S. BISWANATH GAS DISTRIBUTORS HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT N.H.15 BISWANATH CHARIALI BISWANATH- 784176 ASSAM. 6: NILAKANTA RABHA SON OF LATE SACHINDRA MOHAN RABHA PROPRIETOR OF M/S GANAPATI INDANE GAS AGENCY HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT KALJAR BARAMA-781346 DIST -BASKA ASSAM. 7: LUTFUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE HABIBAR RAHMAN PROPRIETOR OF M/S. ASOMI GAS AGENCY HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT MAROWA BAZAR MAROWA NALBARI-781348 ASSAM 8: BALEN BARO SON OF LATE BANDHU RAM BARO PROPRIETOR OF M/S BAIKUNTHA INDANE GRAMIN VITRAK HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT VILLAGE AND P.OBARNARDDI NALBARI-781303 ASSAM. 9: DILIP GOSWAMI SON OF LATE RABI CHANDRA GOSWAMI PROPRIETOR OF M/S. ECO GAS CHAMBER HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT U. R ROAD MARWADI PATTI NAGAON -782007 ASSAM 10: M/S SARMA GAS AGENCIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT BISRANIA BUILDING PANDIT HEMCHANDRA GOSWAMI PATH GOLAGHAT-785621 ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI AMBARISH SARMA SON OF ARUP KR. SARMA

¶18

Page No.# 3/7

¶19

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶20

11: M/S LANKESWARI GAS SERVICE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT NAGAON ROAD 2 NO RAIL GATE WARD NO.-8 LANKA -782446 DISTRICT- HOJAI ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SMTI SABITA CHETRY DAUGHTER OF HOM BAHADUR CHETRY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 12: DR. BIBHA MAHANTA WIFE OF LATE M.N. MAHANTA PROPRIETOR OF M/S. ADITI INDANE GAS SERVICE HAVING HER PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT LOKHARA CHARIALI LOKHARA GUWAHATI-781034 ASSAM. 13: TULU DEVI WIFE OF KHITIKANTA SARMA PROPRIETOR OF M/S. KALAIGAON INDANE AGENCY HAVING HER PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT UDMARI CHOWK KALAIGAON-784525 DIST.- UDALGURI ASSAM. 14: BANI KANTA DAS SON OF LATE BIDYA DAS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. EVE TOUCH HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT MB. ROAD MORIGAON TOWN WARD NO.-4 P.O. MORIGAON DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM. 15: M/S CITY GAS SERVICE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD GUWAHATI-781029 REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SMTI KALPANA SAIKIA

¶21

Page No.# 4/7

¶22

WIFE OF BRAJEN DEKA AGED ABOUT-47 YEARS.

¶23

16: MANAS PRATIM BORAH SON OF PRABIN CHANDRA BORAH PROPRIETOR OF M/S DHARITRI INDANE SERVICE HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT PATARKUCHI BASISTHA GUWAHATI-781029. 17: TAPAN DAS SON OF LATE MUNINDRA CH. DAS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. KISMAT INDANE GRAMIN VITRAK HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT NALIGAON P.O. -NALIGAON DISTRICT- BARPETA PIN-781352 ASSAM

¶24

18: PARESH KR DAS SON OF JOYRAM DAS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. PMB INDANE GAS AGENCY HAVING HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT VIP ROAD PATHARQUARY TINIALI P.O. -UDAYAN VIHAR P.S NOONMATI GUWAHATI-781171 ASSAM

¶25

VERSUS

¶26

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.

¶27

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). 3:THE DY. GENERAL MANAGER LPG-SALES NORTH GUWAHATI LPG BOTTLING PLANT P.O.-COLLEGE NAGAR ABHOYPUR NORTH GUWAHATI

¶28

Page No.# 5/7

¶29

GUWAHATI-78103 1(ASSAM).

¶30

4:THE DY. GENERAL MANAGER (PLANT) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. NORTH GUWAHATI LPG BOTTLING PLANT P.O -COLLEGE NAGAR ABHOYPUR NORTH GUWAHATI GUWAHATI-781031 (ASSAM)

¶31

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

¶32

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, I O C,

¶33

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Date : 17.03.2025

¶36

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.

¶37

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, 27.02.2025 and 28.02.2025 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

¶38

Page No.# 6/7

¶39

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.

¶40

3. On receipt of the aforesaid Communications the petitioners made their separate replies on different dates before the Deputy General Manager (Plant), North Guwahati requesting for extension of time to submit an effective explanation with supporting documents.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

Page No.# 7/7

¶45

period. The respondent authorities may also supply any documents that the petitioners may ask for, to enable them to submit their respective replies.

¶46

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, 27.02.2025 and 28.02.2025. While considering the reply made by the petitioners, the respondents are at liberty to give a personal hearing to the petitioners.

¶47

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

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

Comparing Assistant

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harold Inghi and 17 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

Statutes considered

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

Jahan Uddin Borbhuyan and 15 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.