M/S Trualt Bioenergy Limited Vs Union of India

M/S. TRUALT BIOENERGY LIMITED A COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY. NO. 166, KULALI CROSS JAMKHANDI MUDHOL ROAD BAGALKOT – 587 313 REPRESENTED BY DANAYYA SHIVAYYA JAGADAL.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI AJAY KADKOL T., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATUARAL GAS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA KARTAVYA BHAVAN - 03 JANPATH, NEW DELHI – 110 001

¶14

2

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETAY.

¶16

2 . BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED BHARAT BHAVAN 4 AND 6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD BELLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI – 400 001 MAHARASHTRA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶17

3 . HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PETROLEUM HOUSE 17 JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD MUMBAI – 400 020 MAHARASHTRA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶18

4 . INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED INDIAN OIL BHAVAN G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA – 400 051 REPRESENTED ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI M.B.KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI C.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN RELATION TO THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.10.2025 FILED BY

¶22

3

¶23

THE PETITIONER, SEEKING AN EXTENSION OF TIME BY A PERIOD OF 90 (NINETY) DAYS FOR THE SUPPLY OF THE SHORTFALL QUANTITY OF 1,56,292 KL (ONE LAKH FIFTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY TWO) OF ETHANOL DULY ALLOTTED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE THIRD (Q3) AND FOURTH (Q4) QUARTERS OF THE ETHANOL SUPPLY YEAR 2024-25 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE -A (COLLY).

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.12.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶26

CAV ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶28

prayer: -

¶29

a. “Pass an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondents No.2 to 4 to take necessary steps in accordance with law, in relation to the Representation dated 23.10.2025 filed by the Petitioner, seeking an extension of time by a period of 90 (Ninety) days for the supply of the shortfall quantity of 1,56,292 KL (One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two) of ethanol duly allotted to the Petitioner for the third (Q3) and fourth (Q4) Quarters of the Ethanol Supply Year 2024-25 which is produced as ANNEXURE –“A” (colly);

¶30

AND / OR

¶31

b. Pass such other Order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice.”

¶32

4

¶33

Heard Sri S.S.Naganand, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri M.B.Kanavi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri C.V.Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.

¶34

Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -

¶35

3.1. The petitioner - M/s TruAlt Bioenergy Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’ for short) is involved in the production of biofuel products with its principal focus on the manufacture and supply of ethanol. The respondents 2 to 4 are all oil manufacturing companies – BPCL, HPCL and IOCL. The 2^nd respondent/Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited is a coordinating agency appointed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas for floating the tender for manufacturing of ethanol. On 07-12-2023, a notification is issued by the Director of Sugar, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India prohibiting all distilleries including the petitioner from the use of sugarcane juice or sugar syrup for the purpose of manufacture of ethanol. This ban comes to be challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.107956 of 2023

¶36

5

¶37

which comes to be disposed of on 25-04-2024. During 2024, the ban on the usage of sugarcane juice and sugar syrup for manufacture of ethanol was lifted for the ethanol supply year 2024-25.

¶38

3.2. Pursuant to lifting of ban, bids were called by the 2^nd respondent on behalf of all the Oil Marketing Companies (‘OMCs’ for short) and Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited for the supply of Denatured Anhydrous Ethanol to the OMCs for all four quarters of the Ethanol Supply Year. The petitioner submits its bid on 25-07-2025 and emerged as a successful bidder in some of the bids. On 23-09-2025 another tender notification comes to be issued for supply of 1050 crore liters of ethanol. It is then the petitioner submits a detailed representation narrating several facts and seeking permission to supply the shortfall quantity within 90 days from the date communication of the representation in the already allotted tender. On 24-10-2025, the petitioner again emerges as a successful tenderer and was issued a letter of award for the tender notification dated 23-09-2025 for the ethanol supply year 2025-26. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of the representation for

¶39

6

¶40

extension of time up to 90 days, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

¶41

The learned senior counsel Sri S.S.Naganand appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the shortfall in the supply of ethanol was due to extraneous factors beyond the control of the petitioner and not due to any omission. The ban imposed was so abrupt, as it took time to make the alternate arrangements. It is his submission that due to unforeseeable ban, the petitioner was forced to draw ethanol from other sources by establishing a multifeed manufacturing unit. Therefore, lot of costs for establishment of multi-feed unit was incurred by the petitioner, as many farmers were dependent on the petitioner for their employment and livelihood. In these circumstances the petitioner sought extension to fulfill the complete contractual obligation. This is not considered which is unreasonable, is the submission of the learned senior counsel.

¶42

Per-contra, the learned counsel Sri C.V.Angadi appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 would vehemently refute the

¶43

7

¶44

submissions in contending that the petitioner has not established any arbitrariness or mala fides in the action of the respondents. They only need ethanol to the extent of 20%. The offers made by the petitioner are surplus. Mandamus can be granted only if there is a statutory duty imposed. The ban has been upheld by the coordinate Bench and, therefore, no fault can be found with the hands of the Union for imposing the ban. On the said issue it cannot be that the petitioner would get a right to seek extension for fulfillment of the conditions of tender. He seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶45

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶46

The position of the petitioner and the respondents is not in dispute. A notification comes to be issued by Government of India prohibiting distilleries including the petitioner/Company from using sugarcane juice or sugar syrup for manufacture of ethanol. It is the case of the petitioner that the Notification came as a shock and was

¶47

8

¶48

so abrupt that it has caused unforeseeable disruption in production of ethanol. The petitioner/Company being a standalone ethanol unit was entirely dependent on sugarcane as primary feedstock for ethanol production and, therefore, was severely affected by the ban. The petitioner/Company challenged the ban before this Court in Writ Petition No.107956 of 2023 and the coordinate Bench disposes of the said petition on 25-04-2024 by the following observations:

¶49

“…. ….

¶50

36. Answer to Point No.4: Whether the impugned orders are violative of Article 19 (1)(g) since the restriction now imposed is not reasonable?

¶51

36.1. By relying on the decisions in Modern Dental College, Akshay N. Patel and Association for Democratic Reforms , the submissions of both the side is that the State is empowered to make any law, but while doing so, the interest of the general public, the balancing of the fundamental rights has to be made, which is known as Doctrine of Proportionality, such as the Rule determining the necessary and sufficient conditions. The doctrine of proportionality could be defined as set of rules determining the necessary and coefficient conditions for the limitation of the constitutionally protected right by law, constitutionally permissible. Both the said counsel submit that the limitation on the constitutional right will be constitutionally permissible if (1) it is designated for a proper purpose; (2) the measures undertaken to

¶52

9

¶53

effectuate such a limitation are rationally connected to the fulfillment of that purpose (3) the measures undertaken are necessary in that there are no alternative measures that may similarly achieve that same purpose with a lesser degree of limitations and finally (4) there needs to be a proper relation between the importance of achieving the proper purpose and the social importance of preventing the limitations on the constitution right.

¶54

36.2. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that none of these tests are satisfied, whereas submission on part of the Central Government is that all these tests are satisfied.

¶55

36.3. It is these two contradictory arguments which have to be considered by this Court with reference to the aforesaid decision to ascertain if the Doctrine of Proportionality is satisfied or not.

¶56

36.4. Insofar as first test of being designated for a proper purpose is concerned, there cannot be much doubt on this inasmuch as sugarcane juice or sugar syrup is an ingredient for both sugar and ethanol. The quantum of usage made for production of ethanol would naturally have a consequence on the quantum available for manufacturing of sugar. The purpose in the present matter being to ensure higher production of sugar and/or maintain the existing production of sugar by making available sugarcane, sugarcane syrup, sugar syrup for the manufacture of sugar without diverting the same for manufacture of ethanol, would satisfy the requirement of designation for a proper purpose and as such, the first test in the present matter is satisfied.

¶57

36.5. Insofar as the second test relating to the measure undertaken is to effectuate such a situation which is rationally connected to the

¶58

10

¶59

fulfillment of that purpose. As afore described and dealt with sugarcane juice and sugar syrup being the sole raw material for the manufacture of sugar, any reduction in the same or quantum of raw material declining would have a direct impact on the manufacture of sugar. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that even the second test is satisfied. Thus the limitation imposed on use of sugarcane juice or sugar syrup for the manufacture of ethanol will have a direct positive impact on the manufacture of sugar relating to a higher production thereof.

¶60

36.6. As regards the third test, as aforesaid, the sugarcane juice and/or sugar syrup being the essential raw material for the manufacture of sugar, there being drought and reduced rain, which has resulted in lesser production of sugarcane, the said sugar cane being a water intensive crop. It is clear that if there is less sugar cane juice and/or less sugar syrup available there would be less sugar which can be produced. The production of sugar cane juice itself having gone down, it is essential for the Central Government to make available as much sugar cane juice and sugar syrup as possible for the manufacture of sugar, the lesser production of sugar cane being on account of Act of God , there being no other viable alternative being available for the manufacture of sugar other than use of sugar cane juice and sugar syrup, I am of the considered opinion that the measures undertaken by the Central Government are proper and correct and there is no alternative measure which could have been resorted too by the Central Government in such a situation.

¶61

36.7. There is however some credence in the submission made by Mr Navadgi as regards other bulk users of Sugar or Sugar Syrup or Sugar Cane Juice not being imposed upon and regulation.

¶62

11

¶63

36.8. In as much as there are bulk manufacturers of beverages, sweets, chocolates, confectionary etc., who are bulk consumers of sugar, this sugar once consumed by such bulk manufacturers, sugar to that extent would not be available in the local market for purchase and consumption by a citizen. Which would also mean that the price of sugar is also determined by the demand for sugar by such bulk consumers.

¶64

36.9. Furthermore there being large scale export of these beverages, sweets, chocolates, confectionary etc., the sugar manufactured in India is used for the purpose of manufacture of above goods which are exported and consumed outside India. This aspect has been completely ignored by the authorities while imposing the present restriction of use of Sugarcane Juice, Sugar Syrup and B Heavy Molasses on manufacture of Ethanol. Since the Ethanol supply year has nearly come to a closure and the Interim order granted by a co-ordinate bench of this court has protected the Petitioners to some extent, in the event of the restriction being extended for the next ethanol supply year, then in such event the authorities will also have to impose such restrictions on bulk users/consumers of sugar, sugarcane juice/sugar syrup/ B heavy molasses, since for such bulk users sugar is not an essential commodity but is only a commodity of commerce. All persons or entities who use sugar, sugarcane juice/sugar syrup/ B heavy molasses as a commodity of commerce or to manufacture a commodity of commerce would have to yield to the requirements of a citizen of the country to use sugar by itself as an essential commodity. This alternative has not been explored by the authorities, which could well negate the 3^rd test laid down, however taking into account that there was no much time to control the use of raw material for purpose of

¶65

12

¶66

manufacture of sugar, this non - consideration for now is not held against the authorities. In the event of the restriction being extended it would be required that the authorities take into consideration all alternatives available including imposition of restriction of such bulk consumers as may be required and towards that end the ethanol manufacturers and bulk consumers are treated on the same footing.

¶67

36.10. In view of the correlation and answer to Points No.1, 2 and 3 above, I am of the considered opinion that there is a proper relation between the restriction imposed and object sought to be achieved. Since the restriction imposed is with an intention to maintain the production of sugar as done for the last season, so as to make available similar amount/quantum of sugar for the general populus so as to further ensure that there is no increase in the price of sugar which would affect every citizen of the country since he or she would not be able to purchase the sugar on account of increase in the price thereof.

¶68

36.11. The decision in Chintamanrao’s case , which deals with reasonable restrictions and defines reasonable restrictions, would not help the petitioners in the present case since the restrictions being temporary and the restrictions being imposed due to drought situation cannot be firstly said to be unreasonable. Secondly I find that such restriction is reasonable in order to cater to the requirements of the general public. The decision in Internet & Mobile Assn. of India’s case supra , would also not be applicable to the present facts inasmuch as the restrictions again is a temporary once, only for this year and has been imposed only in the exceptional circumstances. If the rains are good in the next year, the restrictions would not be

¶69

13

¶70

imposed and the petitioners would be free to bid for any contracts issued by the OMCs.

¶71

36.12. Hence, I answer Points No.3 and 4 by holding that the impugned orders are not irrational or arbitrary, and have taken into account the overall requirement of the Country and the population. It would not be necessary to go into the production capacity of each sugar factory or distillery. This being a temporary arrangement, as and when there are more rains and there is more production of sugarcane, this restriction would not apply. The present restriction being applicable to the ethanol supply year 2023-24 will not apply to the next year unless another notification is issued.

¶72

37. Answer to Point No.5: Whether the impugned orders could be issued in light of the promises held out by the State that manufacturers could set up ethanol manufacturing plants and the manufactured ethanol could be purchased by the State?

¶73

37.1. The contention of the petitioner is that there is a legitimate expectation on part of the petitioners that adequate raw material would be provided to the petitioners to manufacture ethanol as per the ethanol policy which envisages 25% of the petroleum products to be blended with ethanol. As of now only 10-12% of the petroleum product being blended with ethanol, the petitioners had invested huge amounts of money under the hope that they will get more contracts to achieve 25% ethanol blended petroleum.

¶74

37.2. The policy is also held out to be a basis for invoking the principle of promissory estoppel. The petitioners contended that due to the representations made, the petitioners have changed their position in such a way that if the

¶75

14

¶76

promises were not to be implemented, the petitioners would suffer irreparable harmony. Both these aspects would arise only if there is a permanency in the decision taken by the Centre or the State.

¶77

37.3. That is to say, if the Centre or the State had taken a stand that in future there won’t be any blending of ethanol with petroleum products, then the submissions made by the petitioners would be said to be correct and the applicability of the principles of legitimate expectations and promissory estoppel could be looked into. However, in the present case, the steps taken by the Authorities are only temporary in nature necessitated by the drought in the sugarcane farming areas, which has resulted in lesser production of sugarcane. As observed above, if there is more rain in the next monsoon or the next season, then this restriction which has been imposed for this year may not be extended for the next year and the situation would revert to what it was last year/last season. This being a temporary phase applicable for only this year, introduced by the Authorities only to see to it that sugar is manufactured to the extent required so as not to increase the price of sugar.

¶78

37.4. The State discharging its sovereign functionality in making available essential commodity like sugar to the general populus as also ensuring that there is adequate amount of sugar which is manufactured. The commercial interest of industrial unit like the petitioner ought to yield to larger public interest so that larger public interest is not adversely affected due to the commercial industrial interest like that of the petitioners.

¶79

15

¶80

37.5. The invocation of legitimate expectations and/or promissory estoppel would arise only when all things being equal and there is no change in circumstances and/or that there is no higher obligations imposed on the State/Centre, to be discharged greater than the promise held out.

¶81

37.6. Though it is contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the principle of promissory estoppel would not apply by contending that what has been only made available is a promise to charge lesser interest on loans made available for setting up of ethanol manufacturing units either standalone or otherwise. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General inasmuch as the whole purpose of borrowing loans is to set up an ethanol manufacturing unit which would serve no purpose, if there is a restriction on manufacture of ethanol.

¶82

37.7. The distillery set up by the petitioners being one which can be used for manufacture of ethanol by using sugarcane juice or sugar syrup, it cannot be now contended by the authorities that there is no promise held out to promote the manufacture of ethanol.

¶83

37.8. The very purpose of taking a loan is to set up a distillery, to set up the plant which in turn is for manufacture of ethanol. The loan is required to be serviced by the sale of ethanol manufactured in the plant. If ethanol is not manufactured or capable of being manufactured, the question of servicing the loan would not arise. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that there is a legitimate expectation on part of the manufacturer that the policy held out

¶84

16

¶85

would be implemented that the Ministry of Petroleum would endeavour to promote blending of ethanol in petroleum products more particularly petrol/gasoline to an extent of 25% of total consumption and as such, there is a legitimate expectation on the part of the ethanol manufacturer that the ethanol manufactured by them would be procured by the OMCs for such blending.

¶86

37.9. The petitioners have also changed their stand and position on the basis of the promises held out, have borrowed loans, set up the ethanol manufacturing plants and have infact started manufacturing ethanol under the hope that such ethanol manufactured by them would be purchased by the State. Though the principles of legitimate expectations and promissory estoppel are applicable, the same would also Comment have to be considered by this Court taking into account the larger public interest.

¶87

37.10. The decision Brahmputra Metallics Ltd’s case supra, would not be applicable, taking into consideration the above reasoning inasmuch as the circumstances having changed, the representations which had been made by the authorities and the expectations that any business entity or citizen of India can have has to be taken into consideration contextually. The context having changed and there being higher obligations imposed on the State to make available the essential commodity like sugar to the citizens, the changed circumstances which are in force temporarily cannot make principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel apply in all their rigor.

¶88

17

¶89

37.11. Doctrine of proportionality would also require that no person suffers due to no fault of his or the extent of sufferance is brought to a minimum. Thus it would have to be taken note of that many of the petitioners have borrowed loans in order to set up their ethanol manufacturing unit and are required to Post immediately after service of notice upon respondent No.2. the loans. The non utilisation of the unit is not on account of any fault on part of the Petitioners but is on account of the Act of State in stopping the availability of raw material for use of the manufacturing unit. In that view of the matter, the authorities would have to come to the rescue of manufacturers who have taken such loan and grant such moratorium as required during the period the restriction is in force, from making payment of both the principal and interest as regards the said loan.

¶90

37.12. Similarly it would also be for the authorities to protect and safeguard the workers who were employed with the petitioners, who would now be out of a job for atleast temporary period during which the manufacture is stopped.

¶91

37.13. Hence, I answer Point No.5 by holding that though legitimate expectations and promissory estoppel would be applicable to the present case, the same cannot be invoked by the petitioners in view of the impugned orders having been issued in the larger public interest of making available an essential commodity like sugar to the general populus and thereby performing an essential sovereign function towards the citizens.”

¶92

18

¶93

“ ORDER

¶94

i) The Writ petitions are disposed.

¶95

ii) The petitioners are restrained from generating any more ‘B’ heavy molasses and/or purchasing ‘B’ heavy molasses from the market.

¶96

iii) The OMCs shall procure the ethanol already manufactured by the petitioners from the petitioners within a period of three weeks from today.

¶97

iv) Such of the petitioners who have a stock of ‘B’ heavy molasses are permitted to manufacture ethanol from such stock which manufacturing process is to be completed within eight weeks from now. On such manufacturing being complete or during the process of manufacture, OMCs are directed to procure the ethanol manufactured from such ‘B’ heavy molasses in terms of the contract already entered into by the OMCs with the manufacturers.

¶98

v) The impugned orders being applicable only for this year and being subject to review by the Group of Ministers, the applicability or otherwise of the said impugned order for the next year would depend on the deliberations and opinion of the Group of Ministers who would have all the necessary information and resources at their disposal to make such decisions taking into account the observations made herein.

¶99

vi) The Respondents are directed to come up with such policy or moratorium as required during the time the restriction is in force so as to provide succour to the petitioners from making payment of the principal and/or interest on any loan borrowed for establishment of an ethanol manufacturing unit and/or ancillary units thereof.

¶100

vii) The Respondents are directed to come up with such policy or scheme as required during the time the restriction is in force so as to provide for the workers of the ethanol manufacturing

¶101

19

¶102

units who will loose their job on account of the restrictions imposed from and out of the funds of the Central Government .”

¶103

(Emphasis supplied)

¶104

The coordinate Bench holds that the ban was a necessity in the larger public good. Therefore, no fault could be found with the ban so imposed. However, the respondents were directed to evolve a policy to provide succor to the petitioner. The coordinate Bench also holds that OMCs should procure ethanol already manufactured by the petitioner from the petitioner within a period of three months. The respondents were also directed to come up with a policy or moratorium as required during the time restriction was in force. After the aforesaid order was passed by the coordinate Bench, the ban comes to be lifted for ethanol supply year 2024-25. Therefore, the petitioner was again back to the rank of usage of sugarcane syrup or sugarcane juice for the purpose of manufacture of ethanol.

¶105

A tender notification comes to be issued on 01-07-2025 for the supply of several crore liters of ethanol. The tender notified on

¶106

20

¶107

01-07-2025 had references of several tenders earlier notified. They

¶108

are as follows:

¶109

Tender dated 06-12-2024 bearing reference No.1000423858 (C2/18307 for supply of around 88 crore liters for Q4 of ESY 202425 in August, September and October, 2025

¶110

21

¶111

Tender dated 29-01-2025 bearing reference No.1000423858 (C3)/18791 for supply of around 124 crore liters for Q2 & Q3 of ESY 2024-25 in February, March & April, 2025 and May, June & July, 2025,

¶112

22

¶113

Tender dated 15-05-2025 bearing Reference No.1000423858 (C-4)/20726 for supply of around 29 crore liters for Q3 of ESY 2024-25 in June & July,2025.

¶114

23

¶115

Tender dated 01-07-2025 bearing Reference No.1000423858 (C-5)/21346 for supply of around 49 crore liters for Q4 of ESY 2024-25 in August, September & October, 2025.”

¶116

The petitioner submits its bid to the aforementioned tender and emerges as a successful bidder. Allocation was made for supply of total quantity of 1,85,481 KL to be supplied to respondents 2 and 4 for the third quarter and 4^th quarter of the ethanol supply year 2024-25.

¶117

24

¶118

The petitioner’s case is that, it was unable to supply allotted quantity of ethanol in full due to circumstances beyond its control. This, in the first blush, cannot be accepted, as the petitioner did participate in the tender, knowing full well that the coordinate Bench had directed the OMCs to purchase ethanol that was already manufactured. The petitioner then projects that it had incurred huge costs for establishment of alternate units for production of ethanol due to ban which was totaling to ₹2321 crores. The petitioner on that score did a shortfall of supply amounting to 1,56,292 KL, as against the allotted quantity of 1,85,481 KL. The respondents then again notified a fresh tender on 23-09-2025 for supply of 1050 crore liters of ethanol for ethanol supply year 2025-26. The petitioner emerges successful. In the interregnum, it submits detailed representations, three in number, given to all three OMCs. The representations read as follows:

¶119

“To, 23 October, 2025

¶120

Mr. Anurag Saraogi Chief General Manager - Biofuels Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited BPCL Complex, Sewri Mumbai 400015 (Maharashtra)

¶121

By Registered Post Acknowledgement Due

25

&

Email Communication

Dear Sir,

Subject: Request for extension of time for supply of the shortfall quantity of ethanol allotted for Q3 and Q4 of the Ethanol Supply Year 2024-25 for a period of 90 days from the date of this communication

¶127

1. We are one of India's largest biofuel producers, strategically positioned as a leading and diversified entity in the Indian biofuels sector, with a primary focus on the production and supply of ethanol.

¶128

2. For and in connection with the supply of Denatured Anhydrous Ethanol to the Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), bids were invited for all four quarters of the Ethanol Supply Year (ESY) 2024-25 under Tender Reference Nos. 1000423858 (C-1)/17893 dated 26.09.2024, C-2/18307 dated 06.12.2024, C-3/18795 dated 29.01.2025, and C-5/21346 dated 01.07.2025.

¶129

3. We submitted our bids pursuant to the aforesaid tenders and emerged successful therein. Accordingly, Letters of Award (LOAs) dated 02.05.2025 for Q3, and subsequently, LOA dated 25.07.2025 were issued in our favour for the period Q4 of the ESY 2024-25 by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), and Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL)

¶130

4. In terms of the allocation made under the said tender process, a total quantity of 1,85,481 (One Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Four Hundred Eighty One) KL was duly allotted to us for being supplied to the OMCs for the third and fourth Quarters of the ESY 2024-25.

¶131

5. However, owing to circumstances wholly beyond our control, we were unable to supply the allotted quantity of ethanol in full for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25.

¶132

26

¶133

6. The reasons for such short supply are twofold. Firstly, the Notification bearing No.F.No.3(2)/2023-SP dated 07.12.2023, issued by the Director of Sugar, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, prohibited all distilleries, including our entity, frown the use of sugarcane juice or sugar syrup for the manufacture of ethanol for ESY 2023-24, with immediate effect.

¶134

7. The said Notification was issued abruptly and without any prior notice, leaving no time for us to adapt or make alternate arrangements, thereby causing an unforeseeable disruption in production of ethanol,

¶135

8. We laid a challenge to the said Notification in Writ Petition No. 107956 of 2023, which petition was disposed of on 25.04.2024, wherein the Hon'ble Court of Karnataka at was pleased to direct the OMCs to purchase the ethanol that had already been produced by us. However, the ban on the use of sugarcane juice and sugar syrup for the manufacture of ethanol was lifted only in the subsequent ESY of 2024-25.

¶136

9. However, pursuant to the aforesaid Notification, we being a standalone ethanol manufacturing unit entirely dependent on sugarcane as the primary feedstock for ethanol production, were severely affected, resulting in a complete disruption of our operations.

¶137

10. Secondly, in light of the said ban, we took steps for the establishment of a multi-feed manufacturing unit to enable production of ethanol from alternative feedstocks. For this purpose, we were constrained to avail substantial loans and also raise capital from the public through an Initial Public Offering (IPO), a process that was both time consuming and financially demanding.

¶138

11. For the initial establishment of the five units our Plant, we have incurred a total capex of Rs.1853 Crores (Rupees One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Three Crores) which includes loans from various financial institutions including Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA), State Bank of India, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Canara Bank and the Indian Overseas Bank.

¶139

27

¶140

12. Subsequently, for the purpose of converting two Units of our Plant to multi-feed operations, we have incurred a capex cost of Rs.296 crores (Two Hundred and Ninety Six Crores). Further, for the conversion of another Unit of our Plant to multi-feed capability, we were constrained to raise an additional amount of Rs. 172 Crores (Rupees One Hundred and Seventy Two Crores) by way of an IPO in public markets. Such immediate financial measures were necessitated solely on account of the Notification issued by the Government of India referred to supra, which left no alternative but to restructure and adapt our operations to ensure continuity of production.

¶141

13. Therefore, for the purpose of establishing our entire ethanol manufacturing infrastructure and to effectively contribute to the Government of India's Ethanol Blending Programme. we have incurred a total capex cost of Rs.2,321 Crores (Rupees Two Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty One Crores).

¶142

14. Notwithstanding the severe financial hardship caused by the disruption in production, we have been diligently honouring all our repayment obligations and have continued to pay every loan instalment along with interest on time and without a single default, upholding our credibility with the lending institutions.

¶143

15. The entire process of financing and establishing the multifeed manufacturing unit, however, consumed considerable time and resources and the same was necessitated solely on account of the ill effects posed by the Notification referred to supra. But for the said restriction imposed by the Notification supra, we would have continued manufacturing ethanol from sugarcane in the ordinary and uninterrupted course of our operations and there certainly would have been no disruption whatsoever in the supply of ethanol by us.

¶144

16. Further, during the Financial Year 2024-25, we have disbursed employee salaries amounting to Rs.39.85 Crores (Rupees Thirty Nine Crores and Eighty Five Lakhs only) and have incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,042.68

¶145

28

¶146

Crores (Rupees One Thousand Forty Two Crores and Sixty Eight Lakhs only) towards procurement of raw materials for the said year.

¶147

17. Owing to the bonafide reasons detailed hereinabove, out of the 1,76,207 (One Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Two Hundred and Seven) KL of ethanol allotted to us for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25 (after price reduction), we were unable to supply 1,56,292 (One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two) KL within the stipulated period, despite having taken every possible step and made earnest efforts to effect the said supply in time, which in fact is a minute fraction of the total allocated quantities.

¶148

18. We respectfully submit that the aforesaid shortfall has occurred for bonafide and unavoidable reasons beyond our control, arising primarily out of policy decisions of the Government of India which took us by surprises and uncertainty. We have at all times acted with utmost diligence and transparency and at no stage has there been any lapse, delay, or omission on our part in performing our obligations under the terms of the tender.

¶149

19. In fact, it is pertinent to mention here that we were able to commission a unit of our Plant for multi-feed operations within a record period of about eight months, whereas the entire process ordinarily takes not less than twelve to fourteen months. This was achieved despite the fact that the IPO, which was originally scheduled to open in December 2024, had to be deferred to October 2025 owing to adverse market conditions further demonstrating our commitment and resolve to restore full scale production at the earliest

¶150

20. The aforesaid shortfall quantity of ethanol amounting to 1,56,292 (One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two) KL, allocated to us under the Tender Reference Nos. 1000423858 (C-1)/17893 dated 26.09.2024, C-2/18307 dated 06.12.2024, C-3/18795 dated 29.01.2025, and C-5/21346 dated 01.07.2025 pursuant to which the LOAs dated 02.05.2025 and 25.07.2025 for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25

¶151

29

¶152

respectively were issued by BPCL, HPCL, and IOCL is now ready to be produced and supplied. Our plants are fully operational, raw materials have been duly procured from local farmers by spending several crores of rupees, and we are in complete readiness to manufacture and supply the aforesaid shortfall quantity within a period of 90 (Ninety) days from the date of this communication

¶153

We therefore request you to read and consider the aforenarrated facts and Circumstances and further, take such steps as may be necessary to permit us to supply the shortfall part of 1,56,292 (One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two) KL of ethanol within a period of 90 (Ninety) days from the date of this communication, in terms of the allocations made under Tender Reference Nos. 1000423858 (C-1)/17893 - dated 26.09.2024, C-2/18307 dated 06.12.2024, C- 3/18795 dated 29.01.2025, and C-5/21346 dated 01.07.2025, pursuant to which Letters of Award (LOAS) dated 02.05.2025 and 25.07.2005 were issued by BPCL, HPCL, and IOCL for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25, respectively.

¶154

We remain optimistic that your good offices would certainly consider the request made in this communication favorably, for which acts of indulgence on your part, we shall remain ever grateful.

¶155

Thanking you

¶156

Yours faithfully Sd/For M/s.TruAlt Bioenergy Limited Having its registered office at, Sy.No.166, Kulali Cross Jamkhandi Mudhol Road Bagalkot – 587313”

¶157

“To, 23 October, 2025

¶158

30

¶159

Mr. Chandra Prakash Mishra Deputy General Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Hindustan Bhavan, Ballard Estate Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra)

¶160

By Registered Post Acknowledgement Due &

¶161

Email Communication

¶162

Dear Sir,

¶163

Subject: Request for extension of time for supply of the shortfall quantity of ethanol allotted for Q3 and Q4 of the Ethanol Supply Year 2024-25 for a period of 90 days from the date of this communication

¶164

1. We are one of India's largest biofuel producers, strategically positioned as a leading and diversified entity in the Indian biofuels sector, with a primary focus on the production and supply of ethanol.

¶165

2. For and in connection with the supply of Denatured Anhydrous Ethanol to the Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), bids were invited for all four quarters of the Ethanol Supply Year (ESY) 2024-25 under Tender Reference Nos. 1000423858 (C-1)/17893 dated 26.09.2024, C-2/18307 dated 06.12.2024, C-3/18795 dated 29.01.2025, and C-5/21346 dated 01.07.2025.

¶166

3. We submitted our bids pursuant to the aforesaid tenders and emerged successful therein. Accordingly, Letters of Award (LOAs) dated 02.05.2025 for Q3, and subsequently, LOA dated 25.07.2025 were issued in our favour for the period Q4 of the ESY 2024-25 by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), and Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL)

¶167

4. In terms of the allocation made under the said tender process, a total quantity of 1,85,481 (One Lakh Eighty

¶168

31

¶169

Five Thousand Four Hundred Eighty One) KL was duly allotted to us for being supplied to the OMCs for the third and fourth Quarters of the ESY 2024-25.

¶170

5. However, owing to circumstances wholly beyond our control, we were unable to supply the allotted quantity of ethanol in full for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25.

¶171

6. The reasons for such short supply are twofold. Firstly, the Notification bearing No.F.No.3(2)/2023-SP dated 07.12.2023, issued by the Director of Sugar, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, prohibited all distilleries, including our entity, from the use of sugarcane juice or sugar syrup for the manufacture of ethanol for ESY 2023-24, with immediate effect.

¶172

7. The said Notification was issued abruptly and without any prior notice, leaving no time for us to adapt or make alternate arrangements, thereby causing an unforeseeable disruption in production of ethanol.

¶173

8. We laid a challenge to the said Notification in Writ Petition No. 107956 of 2023, which petition was disposed of on 25.04.2024, wherein the Hon'ble Court of Karnataka at Dharwad was pleased to direct the OMCs to purchase the ethanol that had already been produced by us. However, the ban on the use of sugarcane juice and sugar syrup for the manufacture of ethanol was lifted only in the subsequent ESY of 2024-25.

¶174

9. However, pursuant to the aforesaid Notification, we being a standalone ethanol manufacturing unit entirely dependent on sugarcane as the primary feedstock for ethanol production, were severely affected, resulting in a complete disruption of our operations.

¶175

10. Secondly, in light of the said ban, we took steps for the establishment of a multi-feed manufacturing unit to enable production of ethanol from alternative feedstocks. For this purpose, we were constrained to avail substantial loans and also raise capital from the public through an Initial Public Offering (IPO), a process that was both time consuming and financially demanding.

¶176

32

¶177

11. For the initial establishment of the five units our Plant, we have incurred a total capex of Rs.1853 Crores (Rupees One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Three Crores) which includes loans from various financial institutions including Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA), State Bank of India, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Canara Bank and the Indian Overseas Bank.

¶178

12. Subsequently, for the purpose of converting two Units of our Plant to multi-feed operations, we have incurred a capex cost of Rs.296 crores (Two Hundred and Ninety Six Crores). Further, for the conversion of another Unit of our Plant to multi-feed capability, we were constrained to raise an additional amount of Rs. 172 Crores (Rupees One Hundred and Seventy Two Crores) by way of an IPO in public markets. Such immediate financial measures were necessitated solely on account of the Notification issued by the Government of India referred to supra, which left no alternative but to restructure and adapt our operations to ensure continuity of production.

¶179

13. Therefore, for the purpose of establishing our entire ethanol manufacturing infrastructure and to effectively contribute to the Government of India's Ethanol Blending Programme, we have incurred a total capex cost of Rs.2,321 Crores (Rupees Two Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty One Crores).

¶180

14. Notwithstanding the severe financial hardship caused by the disruption in production, we have been diligently honouring all our repayment obligations and have continued to pay every loan instalment along with interest on time and without a single default, upholding our credibility with the lending institutions.

¶181

15. The entire process of financing and establishing the multifeed manufacturing unit, however, consumed considerable time and resources and the same was necessitated solely on account of the ill effects posed by the Notification referred to supra. But for the said restriction imposed by the Notification supra, we would have continued manufacturing ethanol from sugarcane in

¶182

33

¶183

the ordinary and uninterrupted course of our operations and there certainly would have been no disruption whatsoever in the supply of ethanol by us.

¶184

16. Further, during the Financial Year 2024-25, we have disbursed employee salaries amounting to Rs.39.85 Crores (Rupees Thirty Nine Crores and Eighty Five Lakhs only) and have incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,042.68 Crores (Rupees One Thousand Forty Two Crores and Sixty Eight Lakhs only) towards procurement of raw materials for the said year.

¶185

17. Owing to the bonafide reasons detailed hereinabove, out of the 1,76,207 (One Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Two Hundred and Seven) KL of ethanol allotted to us for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25 (after price reduction), we were unable to supply 1,56,292 (One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two) KL within the stipulated period, despite having taken every possible step and made earnest efforts to effect the said supply in time. which in fact is a minute fraction of the total allocated quantities.

¶186

18. We respectfully submit that the aforesaid shortfall has occurred for bonafide and unavoidable reasons beyond our control, arising primarily out of policy decisions of the Government of India which took us by surprises and uncertainty. We have at all times acted with utmost diligence and transparency and at no stage has there been any lapse, delay, or omission on our part in performing our obligations under the terms of the tender.

¶187

19. In fact, it is pertinent to mention here that we were able to commission a unit of our Plant for multi-feed operations within a record period of about eight months, whereas the entire process ordinarily takes not less than twelve to fourteen months. This was achieved despite the fact that the IPO, which was originally scheduled to open in December 2024, had to be deferred to October 2025 owing to adverse market conditions further demonstrating our commitment and resolve to restore full scale production at the earliest.

¶188

34

¶189

20. The aforesaid shortfall quantity of ethanol amounting to 1,56,292 (One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two) KL, allocated to us under the Tender Reference Nos. 1000423858 (C-1)/17893 dated 26.09.2024, C-2/18307 dated 06.12.2024, C-3/18795 dated 29.01.2025, and C-5/21346 dated 01.07.2025 pursuant to which the LOAs dated 02.05.2025 and 25.07.2005 for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25 respectively were issued by BPCL., HPCL and IOCL is now ready to be produced and supplied. Our plants are fully operational, raw materials have been duly procured from local farmers by spending several crores of rupees and we are in complete readiness to manufacture and supply the aforesaid shortfall quantity within a period of 90 (Ninety) days from the date of this communication

¶190

We, therefore, request you to read and consider the aforenarrated facts and circumstances and further, take such steps as may be necessary to permit us to supply the shortfall quantity of 1,56,292 (One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two) KL of ethanol within a period of 90 (Ninety) days from the date of this communication, in terms of the allocations made under Tender Reference Nos. 1000423858 (C-1)/17893 dated 26.09.2024, C-2/18307 dated 06.12.2024, C-3/18795 dated 29.01.2025, and C- 5/21346 dated 01.07.2025, pursuant to which Letters of Award (LOAs) dated 02.05.2025 and 25.07.2025 were issued by BPCL, HPCL, and IOCL for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25, respectively.

¶191

We remain optimistic that your good offices would certainly consider the request made in this communication favorably, for which acts of indulgence on your part, we shall remain ever grateful.

Thanking you

Your faithfully

Sd/-

35

For M/s TruAlt Bioenergy Limited Having its registered Office at, Sy. No. 166, Kulali Cross Jamkhandi Mudhol Road Bagalkot - 587313”

¶197

“To

¶198

23 October, 2025

¶199

Mr. Sidhartha Mitra Executive Director and CGM-Biofuels Indian Oil Corporation Limited Indian Oil Bhavan, Bandra East Mumbai 400051 (Maharashtra)

¶200

By Registered Post Acknowledgement Due &

¶201

Email Communication

¶202

Dear Sir,

¶203

Subject: Request for extension of time for supply of the shortfall quantity of ethanol allotted for Q3 and Q4 of the Ethanol Supply Year 202425 for a period of 90 days from the date of this communication

¶204

1. We are one of India's largest biofuel producers, strategically positioned as a leading and diversified entity in the Indian biofuels sector, with a primary focus on the production and supply of ethanol.

¶205

2. For and in connection with the supply of Denatured Anhydrous Ethanol to the Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), bids were invited for all four quarters of the Ethanol Supply Year (ESY) 2024-25 under Tender Reference Nos. 1000423858 (С-1)/17893 dated 26.09.2024, C-2/18307 dated 06.12.2024, C-3/18795 dated 29.01.2025, and C-5/21346 dated 01.07.2025.

¶206

36

¶207

3. We submitted our bids pursuant to the aforesaid tenders and emerged successful therein. Accordingly, Letters of Award (LOAs) dated 02.05.2025 for Q3, and subsequently, LOA dated 25.07.2025 were issued in our favour for the period Q4 of the ESY 2024-25 by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), and Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL)

¶208

4. In terms of the allocation made under the said tender process, a total quantity of 1,85,481 (One Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Four Hundred Eighty One) KL was duly allotted to us for being supplied to the OMCs for the third and fourth Quarters of the ESY 2024-25.

¶209

5. However, owing to circumstances wholly beyond our control, we were unable to supply the allotted quantity of ethanol in full for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25.

¶210

6. The reasons for such short supply are twofold. Firstly, the Notification bearing No.F.No.3(2)/2023-SP dated 07.12.2023, issued by the Director of Sugar, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, prohibited all distilleries, including our entity, from the use of sugarcane juice or sugar syrup for the manufacture of ethanol for ESY 2023-24, with immediate effect.

¶211

7. The said Notification was issued abruptly and without any prior notice, leaving no time for us to adapt or make alternate arrangements, thereby causing an unforeseeable disruption in production of ethanol.

¶212

8. We laid a challenge to the said Notification in Writ Petition No. 107956 of 2023, which petition was disposed of on 25.04.2024, wherein the Hon'ble Court of Karnataka at Dharwad was pleased to direct the OMCs to purchase the ethanol that had already been produced by us. However, the ban on the use of sugarcane juice and sugar syrup for the manufacture of ethanol was lifted only in the subsequent ESY of 2024-25.

¶213

9. However, pursuant to the aforesaid Notification, we being a standalone ethanol manufacturing unit entirely

¶214

37

¶215

dependent on sugarcane as the primary feedstock for ethanol production, were severely affected, resulting in a complete disruption of our operations.

¶216

10. Secondly, in light of the said ban, we took steps for the establishment of a multi-feed manufacturing unit to enable production of ethanol from alternative feedstocks. For this purpose, we were constrained to avail substantial loans and also raise capital from the public through an Initial Public Offering (IPO), a process that was both time consuming and financially demanding.

¶217

11. For the initial establishment of the five units our Plant, we have incurred a total capex of Rs.1853 Crores (Rupees One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Three Crores) which includes loans from various financial institutions including Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA), State Bank of India, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Canara Bank and the Indian Overseas Bank.

¶218

12. Subsequently, for the purpose of converting two Units of our Plant to multi-feed operations, we have incurred a capex cost of Rs.296 crores (Two Hundred and Ninety Six Crores). Further, for the conversion of another Unit of our Plant to multi-feed capability, we were constrained to raise an additional amount of Rs. 172 Crores (Rupees One Hundred and Seventy Two Crores) by way of an IPO in public markets. Such immediate financial measures were necessitated solely on account of the Notification issued by the Government of India referred to supra, which left no alternative but to restructure and adapt our operations to ensure continuity of production.

¶219

13. Therefore, for the purpose of establishing our entire ethanol manufacturing infrastructure and to effectively contribute to the Government of India's Ethanol Blending Programme, we have incurred a total capex cost of Rs.2,321 Crores (Rupees Two Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty One Crores).

¶220

14. Notwithstanding the severe financial hardship caused by the disruption in production, we have been diligently honouring all our repayment obligations and have

¶221

38

¶222

continued to pay every loan instalment along with interest on time and without a single default, upholding our credibility with the lending institutions.

¶223

15. The entire process of financing and establishing the multifeed manufacturing unit, however, consumed considerable time and resources and the same was necessitated solely on account of the ill effects posed by the Notification referred to supra. But for the said restriction imposed by the Notification supra, we would have continued manufacturing ethanol from sugarcane in the ordinary and uninterrupted course of our operations and there certainly would have been no disruption whatsoever in the supply of ethanol by us.

¶224

16. Further, during the Financial Year 2024-25, we have disbursed employee salaries amounting to Rs.39.85 Crores (Rupees Thirty Nine Crores and Eighty Five Lakhs only) and have incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,042.68 Crores (Rupees One Thousand Forty Two Crores and Sixty Eight Lakhs only) towards procurement of raw materials for the said year.

¶225

17. Owing to the bonafide reasons detailed hereinabove, out of the 1,76,207 (One Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Two Hundred and Seven) KL of ethanol allotted to us for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25 (after price reduction), we were unable to supply 1,56,292 (One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two) KL within the stipulated period, despite having taken every possible step and made earnest efforts to effect the said supply in time. which in fact is a minute fraction of the total allocated quantities.

¶226

18. We respectfully submit that the aforesaid shortfall has occurred for bonafide and unavoidable reasons beyond our control, arising primarily out of policy decisions of the Government of India which took us by surprises and uncertainty. We have at all times acted with utmost diligence and transparency and at no stage has there been any lapse, delay, or omission on our part in performing our obligations under the terms of the tender.

¶227

39

¶228

19. In fact, it is pertinent to mention here that we were able to commission a unit of our Plant for multi-feed operations within a record period of about eight months, whereas the entire process ordinarily takes not less than twelve to fourteen months. This was achieved despite the fact that the IPO, which was originally scheduled to open in December 2024, had to be deferred to October 2025 owing to adverse market conditions further demonstrating our commitment and resolve to restore full scale production at the earliest.

¶229

20. The aforesaid shortfall quantity of ethanol amounting to 1,56,292 (One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two) KL, allocated to us under the Tender Reference Nos. 1000423858 (C-1)/17893 dated 26.09.2024, C-2/18307 dated 06.12.2024, C-3/18795 dated 29.01.2025, and C-5/21346 dated 01.07.2025 pursuant to which the LOAs dated 02.05.2025 and 25.07.2005 for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25 respectively were issued by BPCL., HPCL and IOCL is now ready to be produced and supplied. Our plants are fully operational, raw materials have been duly procured from local farmers by spending several crores of rupees, and we are in complete readiness to manufacture and supply the aforesaid shortfall quantity within a period of 90 (Ninety) days from the date of this communication

¶230

We, therefore, request you to read and consider the aforenarrated facts and circumstances and further, take such steps as may be necessary to permit us to supply the shortfall quantity of 1,56,292 (One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two) KL of ethanol within a period of 90 (Ninety) days from the date of this communication, in terms of the allocations made under Tender Reference Nos. 1000423858 (C-1)/17893 dated 26.09.2024, C-2/18307 dated 06.12.20024, C-3/18795 dated 29.01.2025, and C- 5/21346 dated 01.07.2025, pursuant to which Letters of Award (LOAs) dated 02.05.2025 and 25.07.2025 were issued by BPCL, HPCL, and IOCL for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25, respectively.

¶231

40

¶232

We remain optimistic that your good offices would certainly consider the request made in this communication favorably, for which acts of indulgence on your part, we shall remain ever grateful.

¶233

Thanking you

¶234

Your faithfully

¶235

Sd/For M/s TruAlt Bioenergy Limited Having its registered Office at, Sy. No. 166, Kulali Cross Jamkhandi Mudhol Road Bagalkot - 587313”

¶236

In the aforementioned representations, the petitioner seeks time of 90 days for fulfilling the shortfall of earlier tender by explaining the circumstances. Those representations having gone unheeded is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶237

The issue now would be, whether the petitioner would be entitled to a direction at the hands of this Court?

¶238

It is not in dispute that the afore-quoted ban was imposed by Government of India. Hitherto, the petitioner was procuring

¶239

41

¶240

sugarcane juice and sugar syrup for manufacture of ethanol. It suddenly stopped as ban was imposed. Since the petitioner was a standalone ethanol manufacturing unit, it had to make alternate arrangement for production of ethanol. The alternate arrangements are pleaded in the petition in extenso. The ban is again lifted after a year. Litigation against the ban was pending. By then, the petitioner had established different sources of manufacture of ethanol. Again, tender notifications are issued after lifting the ban. The petitioner emerges successful. In the 3^rd notification also, the petitioner emerged successful. Now what remains is shortfall supply which is already manufactured and kept, which the respondents are not adhering to receive, on the score that there is default on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, they are not obliged to receive the said ethanol, as it would result in surplus.

¶241

Ethanol supply for the current year is at 1050 crore liters. The shortfall can always be filled by what is manufactured and kept. Though this Court cannot sit and tinker with the conditions of tender, and the situation created by the ban for the petitioner as pleaded in the representations and the memorandum of writ

¶242

42

¶243

petition, as a one of situation to a one of problem, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 23-10-2025 of the petitioner, for the purpose for which it is submitted – seeking extension of time by a period of 90 days for supply of shortfall quantity of 1,56,292 KL of ethanol, which was duly allotted to the petitioner for the ethanol supply year 2024-25. The representation shall merit consideration within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶244

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶245

ORDER

¶246

a. The writ petition stands allowed.

¶247

b. Mandamus issues to the respondents to consider the representation dated 23.10.2025 for the purpose for which it is rendered seeking extension of time by a period of 90 days for supply of shortfall quantity of 1,56,292 KL of ethanol for the year 2024-25.

¶248

43

¶249