Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/800/2026 on 6 May, 2026
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page 1 of 23
GAHC010027782026
2026:GAU-AS:6148
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Writ petition [c] no. 800/2026
M/s Creation Advertising, a proprietorship firm
having its registered office at Gitanjali Bhawan,
S.N. Bose Road, Deshbandhu Para, Siliguri -
734004 represented by Sri Soumen Das, Proprietor
of M/s Creation Advertising, Resident of Gitanjali
Bhawan, S.N. Bose Road, Deshbandhu Para,
Siliguri, Dist. - Darjeeling, West Bengal - 734004.
..................Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary
to the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum
& Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, Janpath Road, New
Delhi - 110001.
2. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, a Government
of India Enterprise represented by the Chief
General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited
[IOCL], Indian Oil ADO State Office, Sector-III,
Noonmati, Guwahati - 781020, Assam.
3. The General Manager L.P.G. [Operations &Engg],
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [AOD State Office],
Sector-III, Noonmati, Guwahati - 781020, Assam.
Page 2 of 23
4. The Engineer-in-Charge, LPG Bottling Plant,
Dimapur, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Nagaland -
797103.
...................Respondents
WitH Writ petition [c] no. 804/2026 M/s Edison International, a proprietorship firm having its registered office at 14, Lower Ground Floor, T.N. Tower, A.T. Road, Guwahati - 781001, Assam is being represented by Sri Heman Haloi, Proprietor of M/s Edison International, R/o 14, Lower Ground Floor, T.N. Tower, A.T. Road, Guwahati - 781001, Assam.
..................Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, Janpath Road, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, a Government of India Enterprise represented by the Chief General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited [IOCL], Indian Oil ADO State Office, Sector-III, Noonmati, Guwahati - 781020, Assam.
3. The General Manager L.P.G. [Operations & Engg], Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [AOD State Office], Sector-III, Noonmati, Guwahati - 781020, Assam.
Page 3 of 234. The Engineer-in-Charge, LPG Bottling Plant, Dimapur, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Nagaland-
797103.
...................Respondents WitH Writ petition [c] no. 805/2026 M/s Rhino Enterprise, a partnership firm having its registered office at Simlaguri, Barpeta Road, Dist:
Barpeta, Assam - 781313 is being represented by Md. Mahirul Islam, Partner of M/s Rhino Enterprise, R/o Simlaguri, Barpeta Road, Dist. Barpeta, Assam 781313.
..................Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, Janpath Road, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, a Government of India Enterprise represented by the Chief General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited [IOCL], Indian Oil ADO State Office, Sector-III, Noonmati, Guwahati - 781020, Assam.
3. The General Manager L.P.G. [Operations & Engg], Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [AOD State Office], Sector-III, Noonmati, Guwahati- 781020, Assam.Page 4 of 23
4. The Engineer-in-Charge, LPG Bottling Plant, Dimapur, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Nagaland-
797103.
...................Respondents BeFore Hon'BLe Mr. JUStice MAniSH cHoUDHUrY Advocates :
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, Advocate Advocate for the Respondent no. 1 : Mr. B. Chakraborty, CGC Advocate for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 : Mr. M. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, IOCL Date of hearing : 17.03.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment ? : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced ? : Yes JUDGMent & orDer [M. Choudhury, J]
1. All the three writ petitions have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail three separate Orders, all dated 22.01.2026, whereby each of the petitioners has been placed on the Holiday List by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited [hereinafter also referred to as 'IOC Page 5 of 23 Limited' or 'IOCL', or 'respondent Corporation', at places, for easy reference] for a period of one year each. By the Orders, similar in nature, a direction has been passed to make recovery of different amounts from the petitioners.
2. As the exchange of pleadings in all the three writ petitions is complete, the writ petitions are taken up for consideration together, as sought for by the learned counsel for the parties on the premise that the issues involved in all of them are similar in nature.
3. Before any dilation on the issues raised and involved in the writ petitions, the factual matrices require exposition for a better appreciation of the rival contentions of the parties.
Writ Petition [C] no. 804 of 2026
4. A tender process was initiated by the respondent IOCL authorities vide Tender no. RCC/PRO/37/2020-21/PT-108 for award of a contract on the subject : 'Rate Contract for Carrying out Capital and Revenue Works at Retail Outlets [Including KSKs], Consumer Pumps, Depots, Terminals, Lube & LPG Plants, Aviation Fueling Stations, Buildings, etc. under Tinsukia Divisional Office of Indian Oil AOD State Office'.
5 In response to the tender process, the petitioner firm being a registered Vendor under the respondent IOC Limited with Vendor no. 10231735, submitted its bid. Upon evaluation of the bids, the petitioner firm emerged as the successful bidder in respect of two jobs. The petitioner was issued a Purchase Order no. 28025147 on 31.07.2022 along with a Schedule of Rate in reference to Tender no. 7504210201 and Contract Ref. no. 12024312 for a work :- 'Revamping of Fire Engine Room at LPG Bottling Plant, Dimapur'. The Purchase Order Value was Rs. 13,37,030.40. The petitioner was issued another Purchase Order no. 28098139 on 26.08.2022 along with a Schedule of Rate in reference to Tender no. 75044210201 and Contract Ref. no. 12024312 for a work :- 'Revamping of Page 6 of 23 Inner Boundary Wall at LPG Bottling Plant, Dimapur'. The Purchase Order Value was Rs. 24,36,084.25.
6. The petitioner has stated that on issuance of the two Purchase Orders, it proceeded to execute both of them and completed the works on 17.11.2022 strictly as per drawings, specifications, instructions, etc. issued by the Engineers of the respondent IOC Limited and also under the continuous supervision of the Site Engineers of the IOC Limited. After Completion of the two works, the final measurements were duly recorded, verified and certified by the Engineer-in-Charge of the IOC Limited. Based on the certified measurements, the Service Entry Sheets [SESs] were generated, and the final bills were processed and paid to the petitioner without any adverse remarks or objections at that time.
7. The petitioner has stated that after successful execution of the two works, the Defect Liability Periods [DLPs] started and the DLPs were also over in the year 2023. Even during the DLPs, no discrepancy, objection or allegation regarding the quantities or payments charged for the two executed works were ever raised by any of the authorities in the IOC Limited. Suddenly on 07.10.2025, a Show-Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner in reference to Purchase Order no. 28025147 dated 31.07.2022 and Purchase Order no. 28098139 dated 26.08.2022. In the Show-Cause Notice, it was inter-alia mentioned that during a recent verification / inspection of the quantities executed under the two Purchase Orders, it was observed that quantities billed were more than the actual quantities executed for both the Purchase Orders and the same had resulted in excess payments of Rs. 3,53,634.91 [excluding GST] and Rs. 3,64,777.00 [excluding GST] respectively. By referring to the Holiday Listing Guidelines dated 19.01.2023, more particularly, Clause 2.1 [a] thereof, the petitioner was asked to show cause in writing within fifteen days as regards the alleged irregularities and as to why the petitioner should not be placed on the 'Holiday List' and debarred from entering into any contract with the IOC Limited / be not de-listed from the list of approved Vendors / Contractors of the IOC Page 7 of 23 Limited. It was mentioned that the Reply, if any, should be supported by all documents and evidence which the petitioner would wish to rely in support of its Reply. It was further mentioned that in the event of failure to give any Reply within the time and manner aforesaid, it would be presumed that the petitioner had nothing to say in the matter and the matter would be proceeded accordingly.
8. On receipt of the Show-Cause Notice, the petitioner submitted its Reply on 20.10.2025 responding to the allegations made regarding excess payments of Rs. 3,53,634.91 and Rs. 3,64,777.00 and purported irregularities in execution of the two works awarded vide Purchase Order no. 28025147 dated 31.07.2022 and Purchase Order no. 28098139 dated 26.08.2022. It was stated that both the works were completed on 17.11.2022 and the petitioner had submitted the final bills along with the Measurement Books and accordingly, payments of Rs. 13,31,579,64 and Rs. 24,29,004.50 were released. The petitioner had highlighted that while carrying out the works, the petitioner was instructed to do some extra works by the Engineer-in-Charge. Though the extra works were not included in the Purchase Orders, the Engineer-in-Charge had assured that the amounts would be adjusted in the Purchase Orders. In view of the good relation, the petitioner had carried out the extra works also as instructed by the Engineer-in-Charge. The extra works having total amounts of Rs. 3,41,840.44 and Rs. 3,56,802.13 respectively were included in the Measurement Books and submitted to the Engineer-in-Charge in order to proceed for executing the extra works.
9. After submission of the Reply, the impugned Order has been passed on 22.01.2026 whereby the decision to place the petitioner on the Holiday List has been communicated. By the impugned Order, the petitioner has been debarred from entering into any contract with the IOC Limited for a period of one year effective from 22.01.2026 and removed from the list of approved Vendors / Contractors. In addition, the petitioner has been given instruction to refund and Page 8 of 23 deposit the excess amount of Rs. 7,18,411.91 [= Rs. 3,53,634.91 + Rs. 3,64,777.00] to the IOC Limited.
Writ Petition [C] no. 800 of 2026
10. The petitioner herein is a proprietorship firm and it is a registered Vendor of the respondent IOC Limited with Vendor no. 10184094. In the tender process initiated by the respondent IOC Limited vide Tender no. RCC/ERO/37/2020- 2021/Pt-108 for award of contract on the subject : 'Rate Contract for Carrying out Capital and Revenue Works at Retail Outlets [Including KSKs], Consumer Pumps, Depots, Terminals, Lube & LPG Plants, Aviation Fueling Stations, Buildings, etc. under Tinsukia Divisional Office of Indian Oil AOD State Office', the petitioner firm was issued two Purchase Orders on 16.06.2022 and 18.10.2022 respectively.
11. The petitioner firm was issued a Purchase Order bearing no. 27906400 on 16.06.2022 in reference to Tender no. 7504210201 and Contract Ref. no. 12024262 for a work : 'Construction of New Cylinder Stacking Yard at LPG Botling Plant, Dimapur, Nagaland - 797103'. The Purchase Order value was Rs. 6,15,163.80. The petitioner was also issued a Purchase Order no. 28248175 on 18.10.2022 for another work : 'Construction of Cylinder Repainting Shed at LPG Botling Plant, Dimapur' with a Purchase Order value of Rs. 9,81,489.04.
12. The petitioner has asserted that on being awarded the two works, it had successfully executed both of them within the stipulated time periods. The work assigned by Purchase Order no. 27906400 was completed on 29.07.2022 whereas the work assigned by Purchase Order no. 28248175 was completed on 23.12.2022. The petitioner has stated that the final measurements were duly recorded, verified and certified by the Engineer-in-Charge of the respondent IOC Limited. Based on those certified measurements, the Service Entry Sheets [SESs] were generated. For the Purchase Order no. 27906400, the petitioner Page 9 of 23 was paid Rs. 6,15,016.73. The petitioner was paid a total amount of Rs. 9,79,137.53 for the work executed against Purchase Order no. 28248175.
13. After successful execution of the two works, the DLPs started and the DLPs were also in 2023. It is asserted by the petitioner firm that during the DLPs, no discrepancy, objection or allegation regarding the quantities or payments charged for the two executed works was raised by the respondent IOCL authorities. Subsequently, to the surprise of the petitioner, a Show-Cause Notice dated 07.10.2025 was served upon the petitioner in reference to the afore- mentioned two Purchase Orders. In the Show-Cause Notice, it was inter alia mentioned that during a recent verification / inspection of the quantities executed under the two Purchase Orders, it was observed that the quantities billed were more than the actual quantities executed and the same had resulted in excess payments of Rs. 42,465.12 and Rs. 2,92,923.00 respectively. By referring to the Guidelines dated 19.01.2023 of Holiday Listing, more particularly, Clause 2.1 [a] thereof, the petitioner was asked to show cause in writing within fifteen days as regards the alleged irregularities and as to why the petitioner should not be placed on the 'Holiday List' and debarred from entering into any contract with IOC Limited / be not de-listed from the list of approved Vendors / Contractors of IOC Limited. As the contents of the Show- Cause Notice are similar to the contents of the Show-Cause Notice served upon the petitioner in W.P.[C] no. 804/2026, the same are not repeated for brevity.
14. On receipt of the Show-Cause Notice, the petitioner submitted its Reply on 22.10.2025 responding to the allegations made regarding excess payments of Rs. 42,465.12 and Rs. 2,92,923.00 respectively and purported irregularities in execution of the two works awarded vide Purchase Order no. 27906400 dated 16.06.2022 and Purchase Order no. 28248175 dated 18.10.2022. It was highlighted that the work contracts expired on 09.10.2023 and subsequently, the DLPs were also over. It was mentioned that during the entire intervening period, there was no correspondence, observation or intimation suggesting about any discrepancy or irregularity in execution of the two works. The Page 10 of 23 petitioner had stated that the works were executed strictly under the supervision and guidance of the Site Engineer and the Engineer-in-Charge. The Site Engineer reported daily to the concerned higher authorities in the IOC Limited. The petitioner had highlighted that all measurements were taken by the Site Engineer and the Engineer-in-Charge themselves and no separate Measurement Book was prepared or submitted independently by the petitioner. The invoices raised by the petitioner were based solely on the finalized measurements duly approved by the authorized IOCL officials at the sites. By the Reply, the petitioner requested to provide the following details : [i] specific details of the alleged discrepancies in the Measurements Book; [ii] copies of the relevant documents including the comparative measurements record; and [iii] the date, time and names of the personnel present during any subsequent measurement activity, if conducted; as without these details, according to the petitioner, it would not be possible for it to meaningfully respond and defend its case.
15. After submission of the Reply dated 21.10.2025, the impugned Order dated 22.01.2026 has been passed whereby the petitioner has been placed on the Holiday List of the respondent IOC Limited. By the impugned Order, the petitioner has also been debarred from entering into any contract with the IOC Limited for a period of one year effective from 22.01.2026 and it has removed from the list of approved Vendors / Contractors. The petitioner has also been instructed to refund and deposit the excess amount of Rs. 3,35,388.12 [= Rs. 42,465.12 + Rs. 2,92,923.00].
Writ Petition [C] no. 805 of 2026
16. The petitioner is a partnership firm which is a registered Vendor under the IOC Limited vide Vendor no. 11947454. Like the other two petitioners, the petitioner firm herein was also awarded two works by the respondent IOC Limited. The works were awarded to the petitioner firm vide Purchase Order no. 27886043 dated 07.06.2022 and Purchase Order no. 27981142 dated 14.07.2022.
Page 11 of 2317. By Purchase Order no. 27886043, the petitioner firm was awarded the work of 'Construction of Motorable Road in the Periphery of the License area of LPG Bottling Plant, Dimapur, Nagaland - 797103' and Purchase Order Value was Rs. 21,69,850.07 [excluding GST]. By the other work order, Purchase Order no. 27981142, the petitioner firm was awarded the work of 'Construction and Repair of Road at LPG Botling Plant, Dimapur' and it had a Value of Rs. 25,40,967.52 [excluding GST].
18. It is the case of the petitioner firm that after being awarded the two works, it had proceeded to execute the same and successfully completed both the works within the stipulated time periods. The work assigned by Purchase Order no. 27886043 was completed on 02.09.2022 and the work assigned by Purchase Order no. 27981142 was completed on 13.10.2022. The petitioner firm has contended that it had executed the two works as per the drawings, specifications, instructions, etc. issued by the Engineers of the IOC Limited. The final measurements were duly recorded, verified and certified by the Engineer- in-Charge of the respondent IOC Limited. Service Entry Sheets [SESs] were thereafter generated based on those certified measurements and the final bills, submitted by the petitioner firm for the two works, were processed and the amounts found due were released to the petitioner. Against Purchase Order no. 27886043, an amount of Rs. 21,69,363.99 was released against the Purchase Order Value of Rs. 21,69,850.07. On the other hand, an amount of Rs. 25,39,994.50 was released to the petitioner in respect of Purchase Order no. 27981142 which had a Value of Rs. 25,40,967.52.
19. Like the cases of the other two petitioners, the petitioner firm was also served with a Show-Cause Notice dated 07.10.2025 on the same very grounds. By the Show-Cause Notice, it was inter alia stated that during the recent verification / inspection of the quantities executed under the two Purchase Orders, it was found out that the quantities billed were more than the actual quantities executed for both the Purchase Orders and the same had resulted in excess Page 12 of 23 payments of Rs. 11,48,467.50 and Rs. 11,56,630.35 respectively. The contents of the Show-Cause Notice dated 07.10.2025 served upon the petitioner were similar to the Show-Cause Notices, dated 07.10.2025, served upon the other two petitioners.
20. The Show-Cause Notice was responded to by the petitioner firm on 14.10.2025.
In the Reply submitted on 14.10.2025, the petitioner firm had asserted that the entire works were executed under the strict supervision and direction of the Engineer-in-Charge, who was a senior IOCL official. All technical decisions, material approvals, and site instructions were provided by the Engineer-in- Charge. It was mentioned that every stage of the works from site preparation to completion was jointly inspected and approved by the Engineer-in-Charge and his team and all activities were executed as per the approved methodology and materials as per the IOCL's quality standards and instructions received from the Site officials. By the Reply, the petitioner firm requested the respondent authorities to review the matter.
21. After submission of the Reply dated 14.10.2025, the impugned Order has been passed on 22.01.2026. By the impugned Order, the petitioner has been placed on the Holiday List of the respondent IOC Limited and debarred from entering into any contract with IOC Limited for a period of one year effective from the date of the impugned Order. The petitioner firm has also been removed from the IOCL's list of approved Vendors / Contractors. Additionally, the petitioner firm has been instructed to refund and deposit the excess amount of Rs. 23,05,097.85 [= Rs. 11,48,467.50 + Rs. 11,56,630.35] within a period of seven days from the date of the impugned Order failing which the respondent IOC Limited would proceed to recover the amount as per the extant policy, guidelines, tender conditions and applicable laws.
22. Being aggrieved by the impugned Orders, dated 22.01.2026, the petitioners have preferred the three writ petitions assailing the impugned decision of the Page 13 of 23 respondent IOC Limited to place them on the Holiday List for a period of one year each and the direction to refund the alleged excess amounts.
23. I have heard Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. M. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Indian Oil Corporation [IOC] Limited for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4.
24. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three writ petitions has submitted that the sequence of events followed in case of all the three petitioners are similar in the sense that all the petitioners were issued Purchase Orders for certain works with definite limits. All the petitioners executed the works assigned through the Purchase Orders fully and thereafter, they were issued Completion Certificates. On issuance of Completion Certificates, the petitioners submitted Final Bills in the year 2022. The Final Bills were checked, verified and certified by the Engineer-in-Charge with the final measurements. Based on the certified measurements, the petitioners were paid the Final Bills according to the final measurements. The final Measurement Books / Sheets were duly maintained by the authorities in the respondent Corporation. The petitioners duly carried out their obligations during the DLPs too. But, on the basis of certain inspection carried out behind their back and the reports submitted thereafter, the petitioners were served with the Show-Cause Notices on 07.10.2025 in reference to the Holiday Listing Guidelines dates 19.01.2023. Such Holiday Listing Guidelines were not in vogue when the works awarded by the Purchase Orders were completed. It is his contention that the respondent Corporation had misconceivably invoked the provisions of such Guidelines retrospectively to penalize the petitioners wrongfully. The allegation that the quantities billed were more than the actual quantities executed was foisted upon the petitioners without any basis. The Show Cause Notices mentioned about a verification / inspection of the quantities executed at the Sites and relevation about extra / additional items executed not included in the Purchase Orders or the quantities billed were more than the quantities executed. He has Page 14 of 23 submitted that though the impugned Orders do not mention about any Vigilance Report or Joint Inspection Report but it has come to light from the responses filed by the respondent Corporation that the decision to place the petitioners on the Holiday List was taken on the basis of a Vigilance Report and a Joint Inspection Report pursuant to a complaint. When the petitioners asked for the relevant records pertaining the verification / inspection those were not furnished on the ground that those were internal reports. When the Vigilance Report and the Joint Inspection Report had become the basis behind the impugned action and the findings recorded therein had influenced the decision of the respondent Corporation it was incumbent upon the respondent Corporation to furnish the copies of those Reports to the petitioners so as to afford the petitioners a proper and effective opportunity of meeting the cases and to rebut the allegation. Apart from such refusal, the respondent Corporation also refused to carry out a verification exercise at the Sites in presence of the petitioners, when requested. Mr. Choudhury has contended that the respondent Corporation had proceeded in the cases against the petitioners in sheer violation of the principles of natural justice. Mere service of a show cause notice would not serve the cause of justice. Non-disclosure of the vital materials which had influenced the final decision has made the decision-making process of the respondent Corporation, an instrumentality of the State, an unfair one. He has referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Limited vs. State of West Bengal and another, [1975] 1 SCC 70; and Gorkha Security Services vs. Government [NCT of Delhi] and others, [2014] 9 SCC 105.
25. Per contra, Mr. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, IOCL appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 has referred to the statements and averments made in the affidavits-in-opposition filed on behalf of the said respondents in each of the writ petitions. The stand taken in the affidavits-in-opposition is similar. He has submitted that after completion of the works awarded vide the Purchase Orders having definite monetary limits, the petitioners were paid the amounts as raised in the final bills. Subsequently, a detailed enquiry was carried out by Page 15 of 23 the Vigilance Department of the respondent Corporation based on a complaint received. During February 2023, a random checking of some of the Purchase Orders including the Purchase Orders issued to the petitioners was carried out and a visit was made to the respective site. During such visit, it was observed that excess payments were made to the petitioners. Therefore, in order to assess the extent of excess payments, detailed measurements and verifications were carried out during August, 2023 - September, 2023 by two Engineering Officers from the Divisional Office and the officials of the Vigilance Department and the Plant. During the verification process, it was revealed that the quantities billed by the petitioners were more than the actual quantities executed and the same had resulted in excess payments to the extents indicated in the respective Show-Cause Notices, issued on 07.10.2025. Mr. Sarma has submitted that the Show-Cause Notices were issued in terms of Clause 2.1[a] of the Holiday Listing Guidelines dated 19.01.2023. He has further submitted that actions have been taken against the petitioners based on the conclusions recorded in a Report of the Vigilance Department of the respondent Corporation. The actions were initiated in accordance with the comments made by the Vigilance Department. He has contended that any extra items or deviation in works contracts can only be approved by the competent higher authority and in the cases of the petitioners, no approval for any additional works, as claimed, in respect of the Purchase Orders issued to the petitioners was available. The respondent Corporation had also initiated and taken action against two of its employees as they were found to be acting in collusion with the petitioners, who had billed quantities in excess of the actual works done. It is his contention that since the actions were taken as per the Holiday Listing Guidelines of the respondent Corporation and after affording due opportunity to the petitioners by serving them Show-Cause Notices, no interference to any of the impugned Orders, dated 22.01.2026, is called for. He has submitted that the writ petitions lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.
Page 16 of 2326. I have given consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings apart from the decisions cited at the Bar.
27. Clause 2.1[a] of the Holiday Listing Guidelines dated 19.01.2023 has provided the authority to place a party on Holiday List if the party has been found indulging in malpractices such as bribery, corruption, fraud, pilferage, bid rigging / price rigging or to cause injury to reputation or property of the Corporation, acting dishonestly to cause wrongful financial loss to the Corporation or to make wrongful gain to itself. The Holiday Listing Guidelines published on 19.01.2023 do not have any statutory flavour and could not have applied retrospectively. In the Show-Cause Notices, it is discernible that the allegation brought against the petitioners was to the effect that the petitioners acting dishonestly had caused wrongful loss to the respondent Corporation or had made a wrongful gain to themselves. It is, therefore, required to find out on what basis the respondent Corporation has arrived at a finding in affirmation of such an allegation and also the process followed to reach such a decision.
28. Holiday Listing is similar to blacklisting or debarment. In the Holiday Listing Guidelines - 2015 of the respondent Corporation, placed before this Court, it is mentioned that the meaning of 'blacklisting', 'holiday listing', 'debarment' and 'banning' is legally one and the same. In M/s Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal and another, [1975] 1 SCC 70 , it has been held that a blacklisting order does not pertain to any particular contract. The blacklisting order involves civil consequences. It casts a slur. Blacklisting tarnishes one's reputation. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the concerned authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.
Page 17 of 2329. The fundamental purpose behind service of a show-cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. In Gorkha Security Services vs. Government [NCT of Delhi] and others, [2014] 9 SCC 105, it has been held that the show-cause notice would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults the noticee has committed, so that the noticee gets an opportunity to rebut the same. In order to fulfill the requirements of principles of natural justice, a show-cause notice should meet the twin requirements, firstly, the material / ground is to be stated which according to the department necessitates an action; and secondly, the particular penalty / action which is proposed to be taken.
30. It is discernible from the responses of the respondent Corporation that a random checking of some Purchase Orders was carried out at the Sites in February, 2023 during a visit by officials of the Vigilance Department of the respondent Corporation and it was observed during such checking that excess payments were made to the Vendors / Contractors in respect of some items of the Purchase Orders. A recommendation was made by the Vigilance Officials on 11.04.2025 as regards such excess payments. To assess the quantity of excess payments, detailed measurements were said to be carried out during August, 2023 - September, 2023 by two Engineering Officers from the Divisional Office in presence of Plant Officials and Vigilance Department Officials and a Joint Inspection Report was prepared and submitted. In the Joint Inspection Report, excess payments were reported to have been made in respect of four Vendors :
M/s Creation Advertising, M/s Edison International, M/s Rhino Enterprise, M/s B.K. Construction, and those excess payments were quantified. Thereafter, the Show-Cause Notices were issued to the said Vendors / Contractors on 07.10.2025.
31. A Committee was formed as per the Holiday Listing Guidelines of the respondent Corporation for scrutinizing the Replies received from the Vendors / Page 18 of 23 Contractors in response to the Show-Cause Notices. The Committee scrutinised the Replies of the four Vendors / Contractors including the petitioners herein and the facts and circumstances of the cases for decision. In order to arrive at a decision, the Committee studied and analysed few documents namely, [i] the Show-Cause Notices issued to the four Vendors / Contractors for Holiday Listing; [ii] the Replies given by the four Vendors / Contractors including the petitioners against the Show-Cause Notices; [iii] Vigilance recommendation dated 11.04.2025; and [iv] Analysis and Report of the Vigilance Department including the Joint Inspection Report.
32. The Committee examined the Replies of the petitioners to the Show-Cause Notices. With regard to a request to supply a copy of the Joint Inspection Report and the other documents regarding measurements by the Vendors, the Committee observed that those were internal documents of the respondent Corporation and the same could not be shared with the Vendors / Contractors.
With regard to another request for joint inspection of the works executed against the Purchase Orders in presence of the Vendors, the Committee observed that joint measurements were already carried out during August, 2023 - September, 2023 by two Engineering Officers from the Divisional Office in presence of Plant Officials and Vigilance Officials and further joint re- verification in presence of the Vendors could be carried out only after obtaining approval from the competent authority. It is not known that there was any final decision of the competent authority on such joint inspection requested by the Vendors. The Committee in its Report had recommended for a minimum penalty of Holiday Listing for a period of one year. The penalty was recommended with reasoning that joint verification in the presence of the parties was not done. Recovery of excess amounts was proposed by the Vigilance Department purportedly on the ground that the four Vendors did not deny that payments were made in excess of the Purchase Order quantities. After the Report of the Committee, the impugned Orders of Holiday Listing have been passed on 22.01.2026.
Page 19 of 2333. As per the General Conditions of Contract [GCC] pertaining to the Purchase Orders, 'Completion' or 'Final Completion' means the successful provision of all materials and inputs and the successful completion and conclusion of all activities required in all respects to complete the contractual works in accordance with the contract, but shall not include the obligation to rectify defects during the Defect Liability Period [DLP]. 'Completion Certificate' means the Completion Certificate issued by the Engineer-in-Charge in accordance with the provisions thereof. The 'Engineer-in-Charge' means the Engineer or other officer of the Owner, Consultant or other organization for the time being nominated by the Owner in writing to act as Engineer-in-Charge for the purpose of the Contract or any specific works; and the 'Site Engineer' means the Engineer[s] / Officer[s] for the time being designated by the Engineer-in- Charge as his representative[s] in writing, and authorized by him to assist him in performing his duties and functions for the purpose of the Contract.
34. The General Conditions of Contract [GCC] had also provided for the procedure to prepare the Final Bill and to make payment on the basis of the Final Bill. On the basis of the final measurements entered in the Measurements Books / Sheets, the Contractor-Vendor had to prepare and submit to the Engineer-in- Charge a Final Bill in the prescribed form with reference to the total works covered by the Contract and such Final Bill was to be drawn up by applying the applicable rates specified in the Schedule of Rates to the relative measured quantities. If there was any difference or dispute between the Contractor and the Owner as to the items, etc., the decision of the Engineer-in-Charge was to be held as final and binding upon the Contractor. The Final Bill drawn was to be submitted to the Engineer-in-Charge for certification accompanied by the Completion Certificate relating to the works. The Final Bill so drawn was checked, corrected and certified by the Engineer-in-Charge for forwarding it to the Owner for scrutiny and payment.
35. In all the cases, the petitioners submitted the Final Bills against the Purchase Orders in the prescribed form after issuance of the Completion Certificates. The Page 20 of 23 Final Bills were checked, corrected and certified by the Engineer-in-Charge and were forwarded for scrutiny and payment together with the Completion Certificates. The amounts to the extent admitted by the respondent Corporation on the certified Final Bills were released to the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that all the works were carried out in strict supervision of the Site Engineer and the Engineer-in-Charge. After completion of the works and payments, the petitioners had duly carried out their duties during the Defect Liability Period [DLP] of one year without any complaint, objection, or adverse remark. There is no denial of the respondent IOCL authorities to the above assertions made by the petitioners.
36. From the Show-Cause Notices dated 07.10.2025 and the impugned Orders dated 22.01.2026, it is evidently clear that the findings recorded in a Vigilance Report dated 11.04.2025 and a Joint Inspection Report had influenced the decision of the respondent Corporation to take the drastic measure of Holiday Listing against the petitioners as well as the decision to recover the alleged excess payment amounts. The Vigilance Report and the Joint Inspection Report were prepared and submitted prior to the issuance of the Show-Cause Notices on 07.10.2025. The Vigilance Report and the Joint Inspection Report were prepared after carrying out inspection of the works carried out by the petitioners, which were completed in the year 2022. Both the Reports were prepared behind the back and without the knowledge of the petitioners after inspection at the Sites in February, 2023 and August, 2023 - September, 2023. Neither the Vigilance Report nor the Joint Inspection Report was brought to the notice of the petitioners at any point of time earlier to 22.01.2026.
37. When the petitioners requested to furnish those reports to them in the Replies submitted in response to the Show-Cause Notices, there was disinclination on the part of the respondent Corporation to supply them to the petitioners on the ground that those were internal reports of the respondent Corporation whereas it was all the more necessary to supply the copies of the Vigilance Report and the Joint Inspection Report to the petitioners prior to taking any adverse action Page 21 of 23 against them for adherence to the principles of natural justice, which calls for affording them a real, meaningful and effective opportunity to meet the cases set up against them. Even while serving the impugned Orders dated 22.01.2026, the copies of the Vigilance Report and the Joint Inspection report were not supplied to the petitioners. The petitioners were kept in dark about the manner in which the excess amounts for recovery had been arrived at. The respondent Corporation in the impugned Orders did not traverse the contention of the petitioners made in the Replies that some extra works were carried out while executing the Purchase Orders at the instructions of the Engineer-in- Charge and the Site Officials and it was assured that the amounts incurred towards the extra works would be adjusted.
38. The proceedings initiated by a show-cause notice to a noticee, for the purpose of blacklisting the noticee, must be in strict compliance with the principles of natural justice. For such compliance, a real, meaningful and effective opportunity must have to be afforded to the noticee to show cause against the same. A fair hearing to the noticee proposed to be blacklisted is an essential pre-condition for a proper exercise of the power to place the noticee on the blacklist.
39. An adjudicatory authority, be it administrative or quasi-judicial, is not to base its decision if such decision has an impact on right of a party, on any material unless the person against whom it is going to be used has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it. If the authority is to rely on any material or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he should be given an opportunity to respond to it. It is regarded as the fundamental principle of natural justice that no material ought to be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity to respond to the same. The right to know the material on which the authority is going to base its decision is an element of the right to defend oneself. If without disclosing any material to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party basing on such material Page 22 of 23 then the decision is vitiated for its amounts to denial of a real, meaningful and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him.
40. In T. Takano vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and another, [2022] 8 SCC 162, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant based on a report after conducting an investigation. The appellant responded to the show cause notice stating inter alia that the investigation report was not received by him. The respondent authority denied to share the investigation report with the appellant stating that the report is an internal document. The investigation report was found to have been taken into consideration by the respondent authority in arriving at its satisfaction for taking action against the appellant. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that as the investigation report has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication by the authority, then the principle of natural justice required its due disclosure.
41. In Southern Painters vs. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and another, 1994 Supp. [2] SCC 699, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to a dissenting opinion rendered in a Full-Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in V. Punnen Thomas vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1969 Ker 81. In the dissenting view, it was inter-alia observed that an ex parte adverse adjudication that the petitioner committed irregularities in connection with the tender on the basis of a report of an officer without notice and an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and putting his name in the blacklist and debarring him from taking any work by way of punishment is against all notions of fairness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed that the minority view as the law. It has been held in the case that the deletion of the appellant's name from the list of approved contractors on the ground that there were vigilance report against it could only be done consistent with and after due compliance with the principles of natural justice.
42. From the facts and circumstances obtaining as above, it is evidently established that the respondent IOCL authorities have arbitrarily denied the petitioners a Page 23 of 23 real, meaningful and effective opportunity of being heard before being visited with the drastic penalty of the Holiday Listing for a period of one year by the impugned Orders, dated 22.01.2026. To take the action of Holiday Listing, the respondent IOCL authorities have referred to the Holiday Listing Guidelines dated 19.01.2023, which were issued much after the execution of the concerned Purchase Orders. By non-disclosure of the findings in the Vigilance Report and the Joint Inspection Report to the petitioners and at the same time, placing reliance on them to reach a satisfaction for taking the drastic measure of Holiday Listing and recovery, the respondent IOCL authorities have proceeded with in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and such an action is to be termed as one against all notions of fairness. For the above reasons, the impugned Orders dated 22.01.2026 are found not sustainable having failed to stand the scrutiny of law. Therefore, the impugned Orders dated 22.01.2026 are liable to be set aside and quashed and they are accordingly, set aside and quashed.
43. Consequently, in view of the discussions and observations made, the findings reached at, and the order made, as above, the writ petitions stand allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.
Digitally signed by Ananta Konwar Date: 2026.05.06 15:35:30 +05'30'JUDGE Comparing Assistant