Gauhati High Court
Maa Durga Transport And Associates vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 18 March, 2026
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010055542026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1572/2026
MAA DURGA TRANSPORT AND ASSOCIATES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP
ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DAKHOLA, DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM ,
REPRESENTED BY SRI ABHIJIT KALITA, SON OF LATE RABINDRA
CHANDRA KALITA, RESIDENT OF MIRZA NARAYANPUR, .. MIRZA,
KAMRUP, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, A-WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110001
2:THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INDIAN OIL BHAVAN
G-9
ALI YAVAR MARG
BANDRA EAST
MUMBAI- 400051.
3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (LPG)
INDIAN OIL
AOD STATE OFFICE
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
SECTOR III
NOONMATI
GUWAHATI
KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN - 781021.
Page No.# 2/7
4:THE DIRECTOR
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS (MVL) SECTION
TRANSPORT BHAWAN
1 PARLIAMENTARY STREET
NEW DELHI 110001
5:THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
PARIVAHAN BHAWAN
NIPCCD REGIONAL CENTRE
302
TRIPURA RD
JAWAHAR NAGAR
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781022
6:M/S TATA MOTORS LTD
24
BOMBAY HOUSE
HOMI MODY STREET
MUMBAI400001
MAHARASHTR
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R M DEKA, MR. K N CHOUDHURY,N GAUTAM,MR. P
GAYON,MR. TANUZ KASHYAP
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. S S ROY(C.G.C.)R1,4,SC, OIL,SC, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 18.03.2026
Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R.M.
Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Central
Government Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 4; Mr. N. Baruah, learned
Page No.# 3/7
Standing Counsel, Indian Oil Corporation Limited for the respondent nos. 2 & 3;
Ms. M.D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department for the
respondent no. 5; and Mr. J. Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B.P.
Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.
2. The petitioner was issued a Letter of Acceptance [LoA] on 06.04.2024 for a
Contract-Work : ‘Transportation of Indane LPG Cylinders in vertical position on
unit rate basis Ex-SARPARA LPG Bottling Plant under Indian Oil AOD State
Office’ [‘Transport Contract’, for short] and as per the terms and conditions
incorporated therein. The petitioner was allowed to operate eighteen nos. of
trucks as per the details enclosed in the LoA. On receipt of the LoA, the
petitioner started operating all the eighteen trucks for the Contract-Work of
Transportation.
3. However, on 11.11.2025, a Show-Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner
alleging gross irregularities and fraudulent practice on the allegation that the
Chassis nos. of the eighteen trucks are not matching with the registration nos.
In the Show-Cause Notice, it was alleged that Original Equipment Manufacturer
[OEM] had confirmed that the Chassis nos. of the eighteen trucks do not relate
to the Registration nos. In response to the Show-Cause Notice, the petitioner
submitted his Reply denying the allegations. It was canvassed that the
allegations were not true as reflected and the said fact is substantiated from the
Registration Certificates. The petitioner had submitted that the case of the
petitioner is supported by the provisions of Section 41 the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, as amended, read with Rules 47, 48 & 49 of the Central Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1989. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent IOCL Authorities
did not consider the reply in the proper perspective and influenced by a Report
Page No.# 4/7
received from the OEM and without verifying the records of the Transport
Department, the respondent IOC authorities have proceeded to pass an order of
Holiday Listing on 02.03.2026 whereby, the petitioner has been put in the
Holiday Listing for a period of two years from 02.03.2026.
4. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has raised a
number of contentions by referring to the registration certificates issued by the
Transport Department, Government of India and a number of Circulars of the
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India [MoRTH, GOI]
and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended, and the Central
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. He has contended that the actions taken by the
respondent IOCL authorities to place the petitioner on holiday listing for a
period of two years and to terminate the contract are ex-facie arbitrary and
illegal.
5. From the Show Cause Notice dated 11.11.2025 [Annexure-E] and the
impugned Order dated 02.03.2026 [Annexure-N], it transpires that the
respondent IOCL authorities had taken up the matter with the Original
Equipment Material [OEM] i.e. M/s Tata Motors Limited [the respondent no. 6]
for verification of chassis number and engine numbers of the vehicles placed by
the petitioner and the other contractors for the Transport Contract under
reference. In response, the respondent no. 6 vide a Communication dated
11.08.2025 had provided a Report as regards chassis numbers and engine
numbers of 80 nos. of vehicles which have been placed before the respondent
IOCL authorities for the Transport Contract under reference. The Report seems
to have been prepared on the basis of records maintained in the CRMDMS
[Customer Relationship Management Dealer Management System] portal. It was
Page No.# 5/7
reported that out of 80 nos. of vehicles, records were found as regards chassis
number of five nos. of vehicles only. The Report mentioned that in case the
chassises were very old in that event such records might not be available in
their CRMDMS portal. From a cursory perusal of the Report of the respondent
no. 6, it does not prima facie establish that it had reported about any
manipulation of the engine numbers and chassis numbers of the vehicles
presented by the petitioner before the IOCL for the Transport Contract under
reference in a fraudulent nature. Since the respondent no. 6 had confirmed that
the chassis numbers of the trucks in question were not available in their internal
records, the impugned actions of holiday listing and termination of Transport
Contract have been taken, though the engine numbers and chassis numbers of
the trucks are reportedly found matching with the registration numbers of the
vehicles in the records of the State Transport Department.
6. Issue notice. As all the respondents are represented, the notice is made
returnable on 06.04.2026.
7. As Mr. Roy, learned Central Government Counsel has appeared and
accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 & 4; Mr. Baruah, learned
Standing Counsel, Indian Oil Corporation Limited has appeared and accepted
notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 & 3; Ms. Borah, learned Standing
Counsel, Transport Department has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of
the respondent 5; and Mr. Sharma, learned counsel has appeared and accepted
notice on behalf of the respondent no. 6, issuance of formal notices to the said
respondents are dispensed with. However, requisite nos. of extra copies of the
writ petition along with annexures are to be furnished to Mr. Roy, Mr. Baruah,
Mr. Borah and Mr. Sharma within 2 [two] working days from today.
Page No.# 6/7
8. Having regard to the issue involved, this Court is of the considered view
that the trucks against which the adverse actions have been taken by the
respondent IOCL authorities, an inspection of those vehicles is required to be
carried out for a proper appreciation and adjudication of the issues involved.
Such inspection shall be carried out by the competent personnel from the
respondent no. 6 at a designated convenient place on scheduled dates. Having
regard to the obtaining fact situation, this Court deems it fit to fix the dates of
inspection of the trucks from 23.03.2026 to 27.03.2026.
9. The respondent authorities in the Transport Department and IOCL
authorities shall ensure the presence of the competent officials on the dates of
inspection at the designated place. The designated place will be informed to the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents by the learned counsel
for the respondent no. 6 by 20.03.2026. After comprehensive inspection of the
vehicles on the dates of inspection, more particularly, the chassis numbers and
the engine numbers, the respondent no. 6 shall prepare a report to place it
before the Court through its learned counsel on the returnable date on
06.04.2026. The findings of the Transport Department shall also be placed in
the form of a report on 06.04.2026. The petitioner shall place all the vehicular
documents including the tax invoice, available at their disposal, before the
inspecting officials at the time the trucks are placed for inspection. The officials
of the respondent no. 6 shall examine whether there is any kind of tempering
with the chassis number and engine number of the trucks placed for inspection.
10. The cost to be borne for inspection is subject to further order of this Court.
11. Having regard to the obtaining facts and circumstances in its entirety and
to balance the equities, it is ordered, in the interim, that the respondent IOCL
Page No.# 7/7
authorities shall not take any further coercive action against the petitioner and
shall not enter into any Transport Contract in replacement of trucks of the
petitioner till the returnable date.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
