WP(C)/2043/2026 on 7 April, 2026

Author: Manish Choudhury

Bench: Manish Choudhury

                                                                             Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010072292026




                                                                    2026:GAU-AS:5319


                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                    Writ petition [c] NO. 2043/2026

                               Shri Hirak Jyoti Nath, S/o Shri Kandarpa Nath, aged
                               about 29 years, R/o Vill: Jakhlipar [Jyotinagar], P.O.-
                               Simlaguri, P.S.- Gobardhana, District : Baksa, Assam,
                               Pin: 781313.
                                                                ..................Petitioner

                                                    -VERSUS-

                          1.   The Union of India represented by the Secretary to the
                          Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,
                          Kartavya Bhawan-3, New Delhi, Pin-110115.


                          2.   Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., represented by
                          the Chairman cum Managing Director having its office at 17,
                          Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020.


                          3.     Chief   Regional    Manager,    Hindustan     Petroleum
                          Corporation Limited, Guwahati-Retail Regional Office, H.D.

                          Complex, 2nd floor, Janapath lane, Ulubari, G.S. Road,
                          Guwahati-781007, Assam.


                          4.   General Manager [I/C], Hindustan Petroleum Co. Ltd.
                                                                                 Page No.# 2/9

                                 Retail East Zone, Eastern Zonal Office, Purbanchal Bhawan.,
                                 771, Anandapur, near Fortis Hospital, Kolkata, Pin-700107.
                                                                    ...................Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

Advocates :

Advocates for the Petitioner               :       Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Senior
                                                   Advocate and Mr. I. Ahmed,
                                                   Advocate


Advocate for the Respondent no. 1          :       Mr. S.S. Roy, CGC

Advocate for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 :        Mr. S. Borthakur, Advocate

Date of hearing                            :       07.04.2026

Date of pronouncement of judgment              :   07.04.2026

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]

Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4.

Page No.# 3/9

2. The case of the petitioner, as projected in this writ petition and in brief, is that the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ['the respondent Corporation', for short] had published an advertisement on 28.06.2023 in the English daily newspaper, 'The Assam Tribune' and their website for appointment of dealers in 280 nos. of Retail Outlets throughout the State of Assam. In response, the petitioner submitted an application on-line on 21.09.2023 for a Retail Outlet mentioned at Serial no. 276 : 'Within Majgaon village, Barpeta'. After the Draw of Lots held on 04.12.2023, the petitioner was formally declared as the provisionally selected candidate by the respondent Corporationvide an e-mail on 13.12.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted required land documents for his offered plot of land, covered by Dag no. 843, Patta no. 374, Situate at Village - Pota, Mouza - Bhawanipur, District - Bajali, Assam.

2.1. Immediately after the advertisement, the Government of Assam, vide a Gazette Notification dated 11.10.2023, formally constituted the district of Bajali by bifurcating some areas from the erstwhile Barpeta district. Presently, the advertised location i.e. Village Majgaon and Pota comes under Bajali district and both the villages are covered by same Mouza, Bhabanipur and both the villages are contiguous.

2.2 The Land Evaluation Committee [LEC] consisting of officials and experts of the respondent Corporation, on 11.01.2024, conducted a detailed verification of the offered land and documents and submitted their positive recommendation. Thereafter, the respondent Corporationdirected for Field Verification of Credentials [FVC] of the petitioner on 16.01.2024. After getting positive response from the FVC Committee the respondent Corporationissued the formal Letter of Intent [LoI] on 30.01.2024.

2.3. On issuance of the LoI, the petitioner had developed the offered plot of land by incurring huge investment of about Rs. 70 to 80 Lakhs. On completion of all procedural formalities, a formal Dealership Agreement was executed by the respondent Corporation with the petitioner on 31.07.2025. Upon execution of the Dealership Agreement, the Retail Outlet Dealership of the petitioner i.e. 'H.J. Filling Station' stood commissioned.

Page No.# 4/9

3. With the above projections, the petitioner has approached this Court stating that he is aggrieved by a Show-Cause Notice, purportedly dated 12.01.2025, served upon him wherein it has been alleged that the plot of land offered by the petitioner does not fall in theadvertised location i.e. 'Within Majgaon Village', Barpeta District'.The Show-Cause Notice was posted on 13.01.2026 and the same was received by the petitioner on 19.01.2026.

4. In response, Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, 3 & 4 has submitted that the date of issue has been clarified subsequently during the personal hearing with the petitioner on 24.03.2026 and in the Minutes therein, it has been recorded that the Show-Cause Notice was dated 12.01.2026.

5. In response to the Show-Cause Notice, the petitioner has submitted a Reply on 02.02.2026 denying all the allegations made therein. The position, as on date, is that no final decision on the Show-Cause Notice has been passed.

6. Mr. Mahanta has submitted that a copy of the complaint, on the basis of which the Show-Cause Notice has been issued, has not been supplied to the petitioner till date. Referring to a number of clauses in the Dealer Selection Guidelines published by the Oil Marketing Companies [OMC] in June, 2023, Mr. Mahanta has submitted that such a Show- Cause Notice is not permissible after execution of the Dealership Agreement on 31.07.2025.

6.1. Mr. Mahanta has submitted that the core of the Show Cause Notice is an erroneous contention that the Retail Outlet does not fall within the advertised stretch of 'within Majgaon Village, Barpeta District, Assam'. The Show-Cause Notice has mentioned that as per the Jamabandi[Records of Right] dated 01.07.2023, the plot of land offered by the petitioner falls under Village - Pota, Mouza - Bhabanipur, Sarupeta Revenue Circle, District - Bajali and not under Village - Majgaon, District - Barpeta, which was the advertised location. It is also mentioned that the Circle Officer, Sarupeta Revenue Circle, in a Certificate dated 06.07.2023, has mentioned the name of the village as 'Pota' and in the Non-Incumbent Certificate dated 12.07.2023, issued by the Sub-Registrar Office, the village is mentioned as 'Pata'.

Page No.# 5/9

6.2. It has been contended that the plot of land offered by the petitioner is situated at Village - Pota [Majgaon], noting that the revenue villages of Pota and Majgaon are geographically contiguous and share a common boundary. The western boundary of the Retail Outlet is immediate adjacent to the village limits. The two villages were originally part of the Barpeta district and they were subsequently subsumed into the newly created Bajali district. It has been contended that both the Villages - Pota &Majgaon - are under Pota [Majgaon] and they are generally known as 'Pota [Majgaon] and the Post Office of both the villages is common. It is further contended that after the site evaluation by the LEC and Field Verification of Credentials [FVC], the respondent authorities had accessed the primary revenue records and obtained expert opinions of the revenue officials and it was only thereafter, the site at Pota [Majgaon] was found to be in total alignment with the advertised requirements. The primary mandate of the FVC is to conduct a verification of the correctness of the disclosures made in the application and the ancillary documents submitted thereafter and at that time, all the original title deeds and revenue records were inspected. The respondent authorities had arrived at the required satisfaction to formally recommend the case of the petitioner for issuance of the LoI. A number of other contentions are also made in the course of submissions by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

7. On the other hand Mr. Borthakur has submitted that the Show-Cause Notice has inter-alia been issued under Clause 54[k] of the Dealership Agreement dated 31.07.2025.

8. By the Show-Cause Notice, the noticee i.e. the petitioner has been asked to respond to the proposed action of cancellation of the dealership/termination of the Dealership Agreement dated 31.07.2023 for violation of Dealer Selection Guidelines, 2023.

9. With the issuance of show-cause notice, the rights and obligations of the parties have not been decided and crystallized finally. The event of issuance of the show-cause notice is a step towards taking a final decision in the matter. A tentative view taken in the process cannot be deemed to be the final view taken in the matter. The final view will depend upon the grounds taken and materials received in response to the Show-Cause notice from the Page No.# 6/9

noticee i.e. the petitioner and if the noticeei.e. the petitioner is able to show sufficient cause as to why no action contemplated under the impugned Show-Cause notice should be taken the final view may altogether be different. Thus, this Court does not find any justification to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage because it is only against the final decision, not against a tentative view, the power of judicial review is exercisable.

10. It is settled that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would lie when some right of a party is infringed. Ordinarily, a show cause notice or a charge-sheet does not impinge upon the right of anyone. In the case of Union of India vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, [2006] 12 SCC 28,the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the following manner :-

13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 327 : JT (1995) 8 SC 331], Special Director vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467], Ulagappa vs. Divisional Commr., Mysore [(2001) 10 SCC 639], State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , etc.

14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-

cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings Page No.# 7/9

and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.

15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show- cause notice or charge-sheet.

16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.

11. In Union of India vs. Vicco Laboratories, [2007] 13 SCC 270, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed to the effect that normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show cause notice by the authorities. In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions before the authorities concerned and to satisfy the authorities concerned about the absence of case for proceeding against the person against whom the show cause notice has been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the authorities concerned is the normal rule.

12. Though during the course of submissions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised a number of grounds which appear to be ones to be given consideration. But, in view of the settled proposition as regards the nature of interference to be made in a writ petition concerning a show cause proceeding, this Court does not want to make any comment or express any opinion either on the merits of the Show Cause Notice or on the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents. As the matter is yet to be examined by the competent authority in the respondent Corporation, any Page No.# 8/9

comment or opinion on any aspect about the merits of the contentions of either side is unnecessary as it may cause prejudice to any of them.

13. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the proper course would be to allow the parties to raise the contentions before the competent authority so that they can be determined by the competent authority in the respondent Corporation, who is expected to carefully consider the grounds urged in the Representation already filed by the petitionerto the show cause and to be urged in the subsequent Representation, if any, which the petitioner may submit in terms of this order, and to pass a reasoned order.

14. It has been submitted that since the Show-Cause Notice is stated to have been issued purportedly after receipt of a complaint, the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to look at the contents of the complaint so as to examine its veracity and genuineness. Therefore, the authorities in the respondent Corporationare directed to supply a copy of the complaint on the basis of which the Show-Cause Notice dated 12.01.2026 [12.01.2025] has been issued and the same is to be supplied within a period of seven days from today, preferably by e-mail Id of the petitioner, registered with the respondent corporation. On receipt of the copy of the complaint, the petitioner should be granted a further opportunity to file a detailed Representation along with all the supporting documents within a period of 15 [fifteen] days thereafter. The petitioner can also seek for an opportunity to a personal hearing at the time of submission of the said Representation. If an opportunity of personal hearing is sought for, the respondnet HPCL Authorities shall provide such opportunity. The proceeding initiated by the Show-Cause Notice should thereafter, be brought to a logical conclusion. The final decision taken on the Show-Cause Notice is to be communicated to the petitioner.

15. It is needless to mentioned that there shall not be any coercive action against the petitioner in terms of the Show-Cause Notice in the meantime.

16. This order disposes of the writ petition. There is no order as to cost.

Page No.# 9/9

Simanta

DN: c=IN, o=Personal, postalCode=783384, l=Bongaigaon, st=Assam, street=TownAbhayapuri, Ward No4 Tengnamari , Bongaigaon, Bongaigaon Assam India 783384, title=8727, JUDGE 2.5.4.20=caa9a1c0be943e0740ca5dfbbfb8695db681

Das 4b46202926df0aea3036caed4e3c, serialNumber=d950a33227bd4a5ce185958e9d34bd fd7c09a2ca0a1f463628d94fa581ffcb03, [email protected], cn=Simanta Das Date: 2026.04.08 17:53:58 +05'30'

Comparing Assistant