Authority: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

Order Date: 20.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: K.C. Transport and Associates (partnership firm, Mirza, Kamrup, Assam), MAA DURGA Transport and Associates (partnership firm, Dakhola, Kamrup, Assam), LUIT Transport and Associates (partnership firm, Kokjar Mirza, Kamrup, Assam).
  • Respondents: Union of India and five others including Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), Chief General Manager (LPG) – IOCL Assam State Office, Director, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Commissioner, Transport Department, Government of Assam, and M/s Tata Motors Ltd.
  • Nature of proceedings: Writ petitions (WP(C)/1549/2026, WP(C)/1572/2026, WP(C)/1627/2026, WP(C)/1460/2026) challenging IOCL’s holiday‑list (blacklist) orders dated 02.03.2026.
  • Background: Petitioners were awarded LPG carriage work through a tender requiring Tata‑make trucks. Work orders were issued on 25.04.2024 for a five‑year period. No complaints were initially recorded.
  • Show‑cause notices were issued on 11.11.2025 alleging forged documents/false statements regarding the trucks supplied. The notices sought (i) suspension of business, (ii) justification to avoid contract termination, and (iii) blacklisting.
  • Earlier litigation on the show‑cause notice was disposed on 24.11.2025, directing petitioners to submit a reply within ten days (by 08.12.2025) and to be given a hearing.
  • Alleged trucks (by petition):
  • WP(C)/1549/2026 – 14 trucks: AS25EC9899, AS25EC9883, AS25EC9831, AS25EC9810, AS25EC9747, AS09AC5138, AS09AC5133, AS09AC5129, AS09AC4487, AS09AC4222, AS09AC4210, A509AC3844, AS09AC0908, AS01KC1589.
  • WP(C)/1572/2026 – 18 trucks: AS27C6731, AS09C9263, AS09AC7629, AS09AC7627, AS09C7379, AS09AC5710, AS09AC5708, AS09AC5610, AS09AC5325, AS09AC5324, AS09AC5267, AS09AC5266, AS09AC4116, AS09AC3724, AS09AC3701, AS09AC3699, AS09AC3698, AS09AC3390.
  • WP(C)/1627/2026 – 16 trucks: AS25FC4854, AS25FC4438, AS25FC4437, AS25FC4436, AS25FC4435, AS25FC4054, AS25FC3206, AS25FC3203, AS25AC8348, AS13AC5134, AS13AC5132, AS09AC4771, AS09AC4226, AS09AC4215, AS09AC4123, AR20D2677.
  • WP(C)/1460/2026 – 2 trucks: AS09AC7149, AS09AC4205.
  • Petitioners assert they purchased second‑hand trucks after due‑diligence using VAHAN and DigiLocker portals, which displayed the maker as Tata. The OEM (Tata Motors) later replied that the trucks were not in its internal records, prompting the show‑cause notices.
  • Petitioners rely on Ministry of Road Transport & Highways communications dated 08.08.2018 and 17.12.2018, which state that electronic records on DigiLocker or m‑Parivahan are legally recognised at par with original documents under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
  • Petitioners also cite Clause 3(vi) and 4.1(i) of the 17.12.2018 communication, and argue that the tender clauses 7.2.2.10 of Transport Discipline Guidelines and 82(f) of the Tender Documents are not applicable as there is no proven fraud.
  • Respondents (IOCL) argue that safety requires Tata‑make trucks, and OEM verification showed mismatched chassis numbers, justifying the blacklist.
  • The Court examined the submissions, noted that the documents submitted by petitioners complied with the Ministry’s electronic‑record guidelines, and found no clear evidence of forgery or fraud.
  • The Court observed that the verification exercise was triggered by complaints and was not uniformly applied to all vehicles; equity demands that petitioners not be penalised solely on OEM’s internal record absence.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held the impugned orders dated 02.03.2026 to be unsustainable in law and set them aside.
  • Petitioners are directed to replace the vehicles in question with proper Tata‑make trucks conforming to the tender requirements.
  • IOCL is directed to induct the replacement vehicles after due verification and to allow the petitioners to continue supply under the original work order dated 25.04.2024.
  • The replacement vehicles must be supplied expeditiously and within one week from the date of supply, after which IOCL will complete verification.
  • The writ petitions are allowed in the manner indicated; no order as to costs.

Topics: Court Judgment, LPG Transport Contract, Vehicle Documentation