M/S. Gatih Logistics, Cuttack Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950

M/s. Gatih Logistics Represented through proprietor Smt. Jashaswini Patra Aged about 38 years Wife of Umasankar Senapati Having Office At: Plot No.385/1824 Bidanasi, near Modern Public School Cuttack, Odisha – 753 014. … Petitioner -VERSUS-

¶6

1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (H.P.C.), represented through Chairman Having its Registered Office At: 17, Jamshedji Tata Road Mumbai – 400 020.

¶7

2. The Deputy General Manager –Installation Constituted Attorney, H.P.C.L. Paradeep Terminal, Bhitargarh P.O.: Atharabanki, Railway Colony Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur Odisha – 754 120.

¶8

3. Assistant Manager Operation, H.P.C.L. NBCC Imperia, Press Chowk, Gajapati Nagar 12^th Floor, Commercial Complex, Tower-1 Bhubaneswar.

¶9

4. Chief General Manager, H.P.C.L. NBCC Imperia, Press chowk, Gajapati Nagar

¶10

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶11

Page 1 of 24

¶12

12^th Floor, Commercial Complex, Tower-1 Bhubaneswar. … Opposite Parties.

¶13

Counsel appeared for the parties:

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate Assisted by M/s. Saibrata Rath, Adhiraj Behera, Surajit Kumar Behera, Shradha Das, Gayatri Lenka, Shidhant Chandan, Ankit Mohanty, Indira Priyadarsani Bose, Swagat Mohapatra, Adarsh Biswal, Advocates. For the Opposite Party : M/s. Srinivas Patnaik, Nos.1 to 4 Tara Prakash Paul, Nrusingha C. Rout Advocates.

¶15

P R E S E N T:

¶16

HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. HARISH TANDON

¶17

AND

¶18

HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶19

Date of Hearing : 23.02.2026 :: Date of Order : 11.03.2026

¶20

ORDER

¶21

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.—

¶22

Assailed in the instant writ petition is the Letter dated 08.01.2026 of the Deputy General Manager-Installation, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. cancelling the

¶23

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶24

Page 2 of 24

¶25

Letter of Acceptance dated 01.08.2025 issued for transportation of “Bulk POL products” in response to the tender and forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit. The petitioner beseeches to invoke power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of following reliefs:

¶26

“The petitioner, therefore, pray that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this Writ Petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties allow the same, issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other further writ/direction and quash the impugned Letter dated 08.01.2026 issued by the Opposite party No.2/Deputy General Manager-Installation under Annexure-1 and selection of the petitioner be held valid in respect of five numbers of TTs;

¶27

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶28

Facts:

¶29

2. The factual details as unfurled by the petitioner for the present purpose reveals that in response to two-bid tender process comprising techno commercial bid and priced bid the proprietorship concern participated along with others by offering seven Tank Trucks (be referred to as “TTs” for convenience) of 12KL to 18KL capacity and eleven TTs of 18KL to 25 KL capacity under the Women MSE category. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (“HPCL” for short) issued Provisional Letter of

¶30

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶31

Page 3 of 24

¶32

Acceptance dated 25.07.2025 (for short, “LoA”) instructing the petitioner to produce original documents relating to five TTs of >=12KL and <18KL capacity bearing Registration Nos. OD29N9165, OD29N8653, OD29N8239, OD29J2140 and OD29J2182. Along with Bid a Declaration regarding Contract with Other Oil Marketing Companies (to be provided by the Bidder) in Attachment-11 (Annexure-7 enclosed with writ petition) as required under the terms of the Tender was furnished. It was intimated thereunder that out of seven tank trucks offered, two TTs bearing OD29J2140 and OD29J2182 of 14KL capacity were engaged with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (“IOCL”, for convenience).

¶33

2.1. As required under Clause 6 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Tender paper requires “No Objection Certificate” (“NOC”, for brevity) from other Oil Marketing Company is to be furnished to HPCL, it (petitioner) on 01.08.2025 made application to the IOCL for grant of necessary NOC, which was accorded on the very date. On 31.08.2025 a communication via e-mail was made to the HPCL for extension of time for reporting of TT. Notwithstanding grant of NOC, as the IOCL did not release the vehicles, writ petition being W.P.(C) No.25005 of 2025 [OMM Shree Transport Vrs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.]¹ was filed. This Court by Judgment dated

¶34

1 Smt. Jashaswini Patra, the proprietress of Gatih Logistics, the petitioner, being a p artner of OMM Shree Trans p ort filed the writ p etition.

¶35

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶36

Page 4 of 24

¶37

28.11.2025 set aside the letter dated 02.09.2025 of the IOCL cancelling the NOC.

¶38

2.2. Despite such position, the HPCL issued show cause notice dated 04.09.2025 vide Annexure-11 which being challenged in W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2025, this Court by Order dated 15.12.2025 directed the petitioner to submit reply to said show cause notice. Pursuant thereto reply to the show cause notice dated 04.09.2025 was submitted on 17.12.2025 and 20.12.2025. The HPCL without considering such reply(ies) and predicament of the petitioner rejected the grievance.

¶39

2.3. It was impossible for the petitioner to produce the TTs bearing OD29J2140 and OD29J2182, as the same were not released by IOCL. It is only after the Judgment dated 28.11.2025 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 25005 of 2025, IOCL expressed its willingness to release and replace the said TTs vide e-mail dated 26.12.2025 (Annexure-15).

¶40

2.4. Nonetheless, the HPCL referring to Clause 6 and Clause 19 of the General Terms and Conditions of Tender, issued letter of regret on 08.01.2026 expressing cancellation of LoA and forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit.

¶41

2.5. Perceiving the impugned Letter dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure-1) issued by the HPCL being wholly arbitrary

¶42

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶43

Page 5 of 24

¶44

and passed in colourable exercise of power, without any material or for cogent reasons, in absence of support of any factual foundation and has been actuated with mala fide to oust the petitioner, on 09.01.2026 and 11.01.2026 letters were communicated to the HPCL for reconsideration of cancellation of LoA. A communication vide Letter dated 12.01.2026 was made by the HPCL. Expressing that no ground to interfere with the decision already taken being found, the HPCL made communication vide Letter dated 08.01.2026.

¶45

2.6. Being aggrieved, a further communication dated 12.01.2026 was made to HPCL and thereafter, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 13.01.2026.

¶46

Hearing:

¶47

3. A counter affidavit dated 19.02.2026 has come to be filed by the opposite parties on 20.02.2026, copy of which had already been served on the counsel for the petitioner.

¶48

3.1. As the pleadings are completed, and the writ petition relates to LoA of TT for supply of commodities of HPCL, on the consent of counsel for the both the parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing on 23.02.2026.

¶49

3.2. Hearing being concluded on the said date, the matter was directed to be listed on 11.03.2026 “for Orders”.

¶50

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶51

Page 6 of 24

¶52

Today the matter being listed, this order has been passed.

¶53

Rival contentions:

¶54

4. Sri Prafulla Kumar Rath, learned Senior Advocate submitted that:

¶55

a. The HPCL allowed the petitioner to participate in the Bidding process on consideration of the available documents enclosed with the Bid including “Declaration regarding contract with other OMC’s (to be provided by the bidder)” vide Attachment-11 (See Annexure-7 to the writ petition), wherein TTs bearing Nos.OD19J2140 and OD19J2182 along with five others were disclosed.

¶56

b. Though the NOC in respect of these two vehicles were issued by the IOCL, on its revocation, this Court vide Judgment dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure11) set aside such cancellation of NOC. The IOCL though on 06.01.2026 approved replacement of said vehicles for utilising them in any other purpose, practically released these two vehicles by issue of Work Order dated 24.01.2026 de-linking these vehicles.

¶57

c. It is made clear from NOC dated 01.08.2025 that in the event the petitioner comes out successful, the

¶58

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶59

Page 7 of 24

¶60

IOCL would release the said vehicles in replacement thereof.

¶61

On the above backdrop, it is argued that it is fallacious on the part of the HPCL to construe that such NOC is a conditional one and not in consonance with requirement of Clause 6. It is also vehemently opposed that merely because there was failure to place TTs within the period stipulated under Clause 19 of the General Terms and Conditions of the LoA/Tender, the LoA could not have been cancelled and Earnest Money Deposit should not have been forfeited. Such non-placement of TTs were supported by plausible reason.

¶62

4.1. It is arduously argued that the HPCL misdirected itself and misread the NOC dated 01.08.2025 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., which unambiguously reveals that it is “unconditional” one.

¶63

4.2. It is further submitted that though counter affidavit has been sworn to on 19.02.2026 by responsible officer of the HPCL, namely DGM-Installation and constituted attorney, the same does not disclose that on 12.01.2026 LoA was issued in favour of Future Logistics. Therefore, material suppression of fact would not protect such an illegal action of HPCL. Inference of mala fide in awarding the work to its favoured person is apparent.

¶64

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶65

Page 8 of 24

¶66

4.3. He emphatically submitted that the NOC issued in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to be “conditional” and the HPCL having ignored to take into account communication made by the IOCL through mail dated 26.12.2025 for replacement of TTs in view of Judgement dated 28.11.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.25005 of 2025, it acted whimsically by rejecting the reply to show cause notice submitted by the petitioner.

¶67

5. Quoad ultra, Sri Srinvas Patnaik, learned Advocate appearing for and on behalf of HPCL (opposite parties) forcefully submitted that the NOC issued by the IOCL is not unconditional one as required under Clause 6 of the General Terms and Conditions of Tender. Stemming his argument on documents at Annexure-A/2 enclosed with the counter affidavit it is submitted that on a correspondence with IOCL vide e-mail dated 29.08.2025 with respect to status of subject-TTs, it has come to be informed via e-mail dated 01.09.2025 by IOCL that “These TTs are still running in our contract and have not been released. You are requested to confirm the date of Bid submission of these TTs” . It is, hence, submitted that since on the date of induction, the vehicles were not available, there was non-adherence to terms laid in Clause 6 of the General Terms and Conditions.

¶68

5.1. This apart, as per Clause 19 of the General Terms and Conditions, the petitioner was required to physically

¶69

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶70

Page 9 of 24

¶71

place TT at the location within 30 days from the issue of Letter of Acceptance/Work Order. Since such condition(s) could not be complied with by the petitioner, the LoA has rightfully been cancelled and for justified reason the Earnest Money Deposit is forfeited.

¶72

Analysis and consideration of rival contentions:

¶73

6. With respect to two TTs bearing Registration Nos.OD29J2140 and OD29J2182 of 14KL capacity each, the IOCL issued NOC, relevant portion of which reads as follows:

¶74

“These trucks are current running under contract with IOCL at Paradip Terminal. You have mentioned in your letter that in the event of you being successful in tender, you will give replacement of another higher model TT immediately.

¶75

In this regard, it is informed that IOC has no objection in participation of these TTs in other tenders. ”

¶76

Bare reading of said NOC does not depict that such NOC is hedged with condition, but for only in the event of success in any other tender, these vehicles would be released.

¶77

6.1. The petitioner was issued with Provisional LoA on 25.07.2025 inter alia with following instructions:

¶78

“***

¶79

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶80

Page 10 of 24

¶81

4. Please note that as per „General Terms and Conditions— Execution of Agreement‟, placement of TTs less than number mentioned in LoA/Work Order shall not be permitted.

¶82

5. You are required to complete the above formalities within 15 days (90 days in case of booking slip) of the date of this LoA and place the tank trucks for induction immediately thereafter.

¶83

6. The contract will be valid for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of contract not later than 01.09.2025.

¶84

***”

¶85

6.2. The vehicles were not released even though NOC was issued on 01.08.2025; nonetheless, the NOC was cancelled by IOCL on 02.09.2025, which led the petitioner to approach this Court in W.P.(C) No.25005 of 2025. Said writ petition came to be disposed of vide Judgment dated 28.11.2025 with the following observations:

¶86

“6. On the conspectus of the aforesaid facts and submissions so advanced, the seminal point involved in the instant writ petition is whether the action of the authorities in cancelling the no objection certificate upon taking shelter under Clause 8.2.2.14 of the Guidelines is justified.

¶87

***

¶88

6.5. We are conscious of the somewhat settled proposition of law that the Courts should be slow

¶89

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶90

Page 11 of 24

¶91

and circumspect in interfering with the decision of the authority within the four corners of the terms and conditions embodied in the contract, but if the parties have misinterpreted any of the clauses, which do not invite any ambiguity in interpreting the same, the Court may interfere and quash the decision taken in violation thereof. The decision of the contracting authorities is tested not only on the intention to be gathered from the expressed words used in the contract, but also on the reasonability and, therefore, such decision must withstand on the test of reasonability. Though the conditions incorporated in the contract are to disclose the registration number of the TTs at the time of participation in the tender process with full disclosure of its capacity, but the moment the transporter offers the TTs of higher capacity and intended to replace the same with the recent model, we do not find any justification in the stand of the Corporation in taking shelter under the said Clause.

¶92

What can be reasonably gathered from the mandate of disclosing the registration number of the TTs and the capacity to carry the goods is to ensure the uninterrupted and continuous transportation of the goods and if the old TTs are replaced by new model of higher capacity, there is no justification in denying such permission. An impression is created in us that the Corporation does not intend the transporter to transport the goods of another company dealing in the said goods and such restriction cannot be said to be reasonable .

¶93

7. We, thus, set aside the letter cancelling the no objection certificate issued earlier and accordingly,

¶94

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶95

Page 12 of 24

¶96

all the consequential steps taken thereupon are also quashed and set aside.”

¶97

6.3. After aforesaid judgment being passed by this Court setting aside the letter cancelling the NOC, the IOCL consumed time in releasing the vehicles and it could be ascertained that IOCL released the subject-vehicles vide Work Order dated 24.01.2026. It is obvious that due to such reason and such arbitrary approach of the IOCL, the petitioner could not comply with the terms of Clause 6² and Clause 19³ of the General Terms and Conditions of the Tender.

¶98

6.4. Reading of NOC dated 01.08.2025 issued by the IOCL without any ambiguity reveals that it is not a conditional one. The sentence “In this regard, it is informed that IOC has no objection in participation of these TTs in other

¶99

2 Relevant portion of Clause 6 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Tender stands thus:

¶100

“For Tank Trucks under operation with any other Oil Company, an unconditional No Objection Certificate is to be obtained from the concerned Oil Company for placing the same fully in the service of HPC against this tender. NOC to be submitted at the time of induction of Tank Truck.”

¶101

3 Relevant portion of Clause 19 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Tender stands thus:

¶102

“(a) Successful tenderer/s will be required, before undertaking the contract to execute the Agreement within 15 days of the date of issue of the Work Order and should physically place the Tank Truck at the location within 30 days from the issue of LoA/Work Order. HPCL may allow additional time of up to 15 days for execution of Agreement. In case of failure, HPCL reserves the right to cancel the LoA. Date of HPCL e-mail sent along with the LoA copy bidders will be considered as the issue date of LoA.

¶103

(d) Tank trucks placed for induction shall meet with all the terms and conditions stipulated in the tender document. Any modification required to be carried for complying with the tender conditions shall he carried out prior to placing the tank trucks.

¶104

(e) Tank trucks completed in all respects shall he placed for induction. Not fulfilling any of the tender conditions shall be deemed as non-compliance of tender requirements and appropriate action as per terms of the tender shall be taken.”

¶105

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶106

Page 13 of 24

¶107

tenders” reflected in said NOC makes it abundantly clear that it is not hedged with any condition. It is also relevant to take note of e-mail dated 31.08.2025 placed before Deputy General Manager (Installation), HPCL, whereby the petitioner sought for extension of time for making TTs available as the IOCL had not released the vehicles by then, which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by way of a writ petition as noted above.

¶108

6.5. The case of the petitioner is fortified by having a glance at Provisional LoA dated 25.07.2025, which instructs to complete formalities within 15 days of the date of said LoA. In fact, within fifteen days an unconditional NOC was obtained from IOCL, though the same subsequently stood cancelled unilaterally. However, by virtue of Judgment dated 28.11.2025 in W.P.(C) No.25005 of 2025 of this Court, the position is restored to the stage that was obtained as on 01.08.2025.

¶109

6.6. In this regard rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India may be relevant to buttress that when an order is set aside, the position goes back to the stage from where default occurred. Regard may be had to Shri Anant R. Kulkarni Vrs. Y.P. Education Society, (2013) 6 SCR 1124 wherein it has been stated thus:

¶110

“It is a settled legal proposition that, once the Court sets aside an order of punishment on the ground, that the

¶111

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶112

Page 14 of 24

¶113

enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court should not severely preclude the employer from holding the inquiry in accordance with law. It must remit the concerned case to the disciplinary authority, to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and to conclude the same in accordance with law. However, resorting to such a course depends upon the gravity of delinquency involved. Thus, the court must examine the magnitude of misconduct alleged against the delinquent employee. It is in view of this, that courts/tribunals, are not competent to quash the charge-sheet and related disciplinary proceedings, before the same are concluded, on the aforementioned grounds. (Vide: Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc. etc. Vrs. B. Karunakar etc. etc., AIR 1994 SC 1074; Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya Vrs. Secretary, S.M. School for Girls, (2002) 10 SCC 293; U.P. State Spinning C. Ltd. Vrs. R.S. Pandey, (2005) 8 SCC 264; and Union of India Vrs. Y.S. Sandhu, Ex-Inspector, AIR 2009 SC 161).”

¶114

In Anantdeep Singh Vrs. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, (2024) 9 SCR 135 it has been stated thus:

¶115

“ Once the termination order is set aside and judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ petition challenging the said termination order has also been set aside, the natural consequence is that the employee should be taken back in service and thereafter proceeded with as per the directions. Once the termination order is set aside then the employee is deemed to be in service. We find no justification in the inaction of the High Court and also the State in not taking back the appellant into service after the order dated 20.04.2022. No decision was taken either by the High Court or by the State of taking back the

¶116

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶117

Page 15 of 24

¶118

appellant into service and no decision was made regarding the back wages from the date the termination order had been passed till the date of reinstatement which should be the date of the judgment of this Court. In any case, the appellant was entitled to salary from the date of judgment dated 20.04.2022 till fresh termination order was passed on 02.04.2024. The appellant would thus be entitled to full salary for the above period to be calculated with all benefits admissible treating the appellant to be in continuous service.”

¶119

6.7. Being abreast of such ratio, it is, hence, held that as the cancellation of NOC issued by the IOCL has been set aside, the NOC is stated to be valid on and from 01.08.2025. Therefore, it can be concluded in the aforesaid conspectus of facts borne on record that the perception of the HPCL is flawed inasmuch as the petitioner has not deviated from conditions stipulated in Clause 6 of the General Terms and Conditions attached to the Tender.

¶120

6.8. Since the NOC is treated to have been obtained within the period stipulated, the other reason for cancellation of Provisional LoA dated 25.07.2025 by relying on Clause 19 of the General Terms and Conditions cannot subsist.

¶121

7. To consider the contention of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the reason ascribed for taking penal action like cancellation of LoA and forfeiting Earnest Money Deposit, it may be apposite

¶122

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶123

Page 16 of 24

¶124

to take into consideration the following approach made by the HPCL in its impugned Letter dated 08.01.2026:

¶125

“***

¶126

Notwithstanding the fact that all Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) are Public Sector Undertakings, each CMC operates strictly in accordance with its own approved Tender Terms and Conditions. No OMC has the authority to compel or direct another OMC to release Tank Trucks under an existing contract.

¶127

The onus to obtain an unconditional No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the concerned OMC squarely rests with the bidder, which requirement was expressly stipulated in the Tender Terms and Conditions and duly acknowledged and accepted by you at the time of submission of the bid.

¶128

You had offered the aforesaid two (02) Tank Trucks with that an full knowledge and clear understanding, unconditional NOC was required to be submitted within the stipulated time prior to induction. However, you have failed to comply with this mandatory requirement, rendering the offered Tank Trucks ineligible for induction under the subject tender.

¶129

***

¶130

The Show Cause Notice issued to you continues to hold valid factual and legal grounds, as the conditional No Objection Certificate submitted by you was duly verified with the competent authority of IOCL through official e- mail correspondence. IOCL categorically confirmed that TT Nos. OD-29J-2140 and OD-29J-2182 were operating under their active contract at the relevant time.

¶131

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶132

Page 17 of 24

¶133

***

¶134

The timelines provided in the Tender terms and conditions are sacrosanct, given the sensitive nature of the business of the Corporation, being involved in the delivery of essential commodities. It is further noted that all LOA holders were provided a uniform time period to complete tender formalities. As already communicated vide SCN dated 04.09.2025, IOCL had categorically confirmed that Tank Trucks OD-29J-2140 and OD-29J-2182 were under their active contract Even as on date, these Tank Trucks continue to operate under IOCL‟s contract. Your own email dated 29.12.2025 containing IOC mail dated 26.12.2025 confirms that release of the said Tank Trucks from IOCL would occur only upon induction of replacement Tank Trucks, which is contrary to the requirement of submitting an unconditional NOC prior to induction, as stipulated under Clause 6 of the Tender. Any non-uniform treatment, including providing extended time for the submission of the Documents or compliance with the Tender terms and conditions, would amount to providing preferential treatment to one Bidder over the other. In other words, acceptance of your conditional NOC/unconditional NOC issued in future as Informed by you or providing you with additional timeline beyond the Tender terms and conditions for the induction of TTs would amount to favourable treatment to you over other Bidders, leading unfavourable competitive conditions against other Bidders.

¶135

***

¶136

Accordingly, in line with Clause 19(a) and Clause 6 of Tender No. 2400016376-HD-09050, we regret to inform you that the LOA issued to you stands cancelled with

¶137

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶138

Page 18 of 24

¶139

immediate effect. Further, your EMD shall be forfeited as per tender conditions.”

¶140

7.1. The conclusion so arrived at based on Clause 6 and Clause 19 afore-mentioned does not appear to be reasonable or prudent. The genesis of action against the petitioner, as admitted by HPCL in its Letter dated 08.01.2026 vide Annexure-1, reveals that:

¶141

“At the time of bid submission as per Attachment-11 of the Tender Document, you had declared that 7 out of 18 TTs offered by you were already in operation and currently plying with other OMC. Out of 7 TT, 2 TTs (TT No. OD29J2140 and OD29J2182) have been selected in LoA and you had submitted a conditional NOC from IOC vide NOC Ref: OSO/OPS/PDP/RC/TPT/NOC from Indian Oil, dated 01.08.2025, The abovementioned NOC is conditional in nature with the condition attached—„these trucks are current running under contract with IOC at Paradip Terminal. You have mentioned in your letter that in the event of you being successful in tender, you will give replacement of another higher model TT immediately.”

¶142

7.2. With full knowledge that the subject-TTs were engaged with other Oil Marketing Company, as indicated in the declaration vide Attachment-11 to the Bid document, the HPCL allowed the petitioner to participate in the process of tender. Being conscious of such fact, the HPCL opened not only the techno-commercial Bid, but also financial Bid and found the petitioner successful. It is only after such exercise, the HPCL came forward to

¶143

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶144

Page 19 of 24

¶145

dissuade the successful Bidder from executing the work on specious plea that the NOC is unconditional. It is not in dispute that the NOC issued by the IOCL was before the HPCL and the HPCL conducted verification with respect to its status. The IOCL replied on 01.09.2025 indicating the subject-TTs were not released. The events would go to show that the cancellation of NOC being set aside by this Court, the NOC originally issued by the IOCL remained valid. Such NOC being unconditional one, the petitioner could not have been expected to perform the impossible and what was not within its control.

¶146

7.3. Though the NOC was issued on 01.08.2025 by the IOCL, the same was cancelled, which gave rise to noncompliance of tender conditions despite a communication via e-mail on 31.08.2025 was made to the HPCL for extension of time for reporting of TT. However, such cancellation was interdicted by this Court in W.P.(C) No.25005 of 2025 vide Judgment dated 28.11.2025 . It is apt at this stage to say that the law does not expect the performance of the impossible.⁴

¶147

7.4. It is needed to be considered that the HPCL issued Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2025 contemplating penal action of cancelling LoA and forfeiture of Earnest Money

¶148

4 See Nirmal Chandra Rout Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.18144 of 2022, vide Judgment dated 04.02.2026 for discussions on the principle “nemo tenetur ad im p ossibilia”/ “ lex non co g it ad im p ossibilia” .

¶149

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶150

Page 20 of 24

¶151

Deposit on the premise that the petitioner failed to furnish “unconditional NOC for the aforementioned two TTs within the timeline provided in the LoA and the Tender document. Assailing such notice having approached in a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2025, this Court passed Order dated 15.12.2025 granting the petitioner liberty to file reply with the following observations:

¶152

“3. Since the said TTs were attached to the said company, an application was made by the petitioner to release the same with the stipulation that the petitioner intended to participate in another tender floated by the present opposite parties. The said NOC was initially issued but there appears to be dissent in this regard and the said NOC was subsequently cancelled. Since the petitioner did not put in place the aforesaid TTs as disclosed in the bid documents nor submitted a valid NOC as the same was subsequently cancelled, the said show-cause notice was issued, which is impugned in the instant writ petition.

¶153

***

¶154

5. The Court should not venture to strike down the show-cause notice even if the explanation and/or the facts warrant so, the Court should relegate the parties to the authorities disclosing all such facts for taking a decision on the basis of such disclosure of facts to be satisfactory and/or plausible.

¶155

6. In the instant case, the petitioner attempted to bring the subsequent event arisen in a judicial parlance as

¶156

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶157

Page 21 of 24

¶158

the decision of the other company in cancelling the NOC was quashed and set aside and, therefore, it is sought to be contended that there is no basis for the show-cause notice issued by the opposite parties. It is essentially a question of fact if disclosed to be decided by the authority competent in this regard. Solely on such basis, the Court should not interfere with the show-cause notice as the subjective satisfaction of the authorities is important and paramount in this regard.

¶159

7. Considering the peculiarity of the facts, we permit the petitioner to file a reply to the said show-cause notice impugned in the instant writ petition by extending the time by one week from date. In the event, such reply to the said show-cause notice is filed within the time indicated hereinabove, the opposite parties or the competent authorities shall take a pragmatic view and will take a decision within a reasonable period of time which should not exceed beyond one month from the date of filing of the reply.”

¶160

7.5. Accordingly replies dated 17.12.2025 and 20.12.2025 were filed and a representation dated 09.01.2026 was also made to the authority concerned clearly stating that the IOCL is required to act in consonance with the Judgment dated 28.11.2025 setting aside the cancellation of NOC. Since IOCL is to comply with such Judgment of this Court and release the two TTs mentioned above in relation to NOC dated 01.08.2025 so that the petitioner would be enabled to engage these TTs with the HPCL, it was also impressed upon by the

¶161

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶162

Page 22 of 24

¶163

petitioner that non-release of the two TTs by IOCL was beyond control and by dint of judicial order of this Court the IOCL was to take steps. However, in fact on 24.01.2026 the IOCL released the TTs in terms of unconditional NOC dated 01.08.2025.

¶164

7.6. It has already been held in the foregoing paragraphs that the NOC of the IOCL was “unconditional” and the HPCL misread the terms of such NOC. It is placed on record by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the vehicles (TTs) are released by IOCL on 24.01.2026. This Court is persuaded to hold that non-compliance of condition laid in Clause 6 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Tender within the timeframe stipulated in Clause 19 thereof was beyond control of the petitioner and the same cannot be attributed to the bidder.

¶165

Conclusion:

¶166

8. In course of hearing of the present writ petition, it was made clear that the case is confined to the issue whether NOC issued by the IOCL on 01.08.2025 was conditional one or unconditional. Therefore, other points which were sought to be agitated by the opposite parties are not addressed in this Order. This Court desists from addressing any other issue which was de hors the show cause notice issued to the petitioner.

¶167

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶168

Page 23 of 24

¶169

9. For the reasons above stated coupled with factual details as narrated, having held that the approach of the HPCL in comprehending the NOC dated 01.08.2025 was not “unconditional NOC prior to induction” is misconceived, misdirected and unfathomable, and upon perceiving that the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by way of writ petition to challenge the cancellation of NOC, which detained it from adhering to the time line given in Clause 19 of the General Terms and Conditions, this Court has no other option but to quash the penal action taken against the petitioner, viz., cancellation of the LoA and forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit, vide Letter dated 08.01.2026.

¶170

9.1. The opposite parties are directed to give consequential effect to the petitioner within a period of four weeks hence.

¶171

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of and pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is disposed of accordingly, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶172

I agree.

¶173

Signature Not Verified

¶174

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Mar-2026 17:56:58

¶175

(HARISH TANDON) (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

¶176

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 11th March, 2026//Aswhini/Bichi

¶177

W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026

¶178

Page 24 of 24

M/S. Gatih Logistics, Cuttack v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Gatih Logistics, Cuttack v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Makardhwaj Biswal Vs the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Servises Tax, Bhubaneswar

M/S. Agrawal Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., Chattisgarh Vs State of Odisha

Tusharkant Samantaray Vs the State Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar I Circle

Ranjan Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Bhimpur Service Cooperative Society Ltd., Ganjam Vs the State Tax Officer, Ganjam I Circle

M/S. 2IN Rocks Hotels and Resturant Private Limited, Bhubaneswar Vs Asst. Commissioner of State Tax, Ct and Gst, Bhubaneswar IV Circle