[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sonam Duke vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And on 3 February, 2026
Sr. No. 123
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 144/2026
Sonam Duke .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate
V/s
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and .....Respondent(s)
others
Through:- Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, GA
Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
03.02.2026
1. The instant petition is by way of second round of litigation.
2. The petitioner, initially in the year 2022, was aggrieved of
communication dated 23.11.2022, issued by Deputy Secretary, Food,
Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, UT of Ladakh, to
respondent No. 2-Consumer Affairs Department in WP(C)
2657/2022, thereby, directing that supply of Non-PDS Superior
Kerosene Oil (SKO) shall be carried out by the Department itself
through its sale centre in the absence of guidelines/rules.
3. It was the specific case of the petitioner in the earlier writ petition
preferred by the petitioner which was registered as WP(C) No.
2657/2022 that even after formation of UT of Ladakh, the petitioner
had been allowed to continue by way of interim measure. The further
case of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition was that by virtue
of communication/order which was impugned in the aforesaid
petition, the supply of Non-PDS Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) would
now be carried out by the Department through its sale centre, in spite
of the fact that the guidelines/rules had not yet been framed. The
court, after feeling prima facie satisfied and hearing the learned
counsel for the petitioner, was pleased to stay the aforesaid
communication dated 23.11.2022, which was subject matter of the
said writ petition, vide interim order dated 09.12.2022, and a
direction was issued to respondents to authorize the petitioner to
continue making sale of Non-PDS Kerosene Oil on OMSS rates to
Government Departments/consumers of District Leh, by way of an
interim arrangement, as had been done in the past, till the
guidelines/rules are framed.
4. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by Mr. Sunil Sethi,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the
order passed by this Court mentioned supra continues to be operative
as on date and stands implemented in its letter and spirit without any
hindrance on part of the respondents. The respondents were under a
legal obligation to comply the aforesaid order in its letter and spirit
till the same was modified or vacated or till the guidelines/rules were
framed and in the meantime, the petitioner was authorized to
continue making sale of Non-PDS Kerosene Oil on OMSS rates to
the Government Departments/consumers of District Leh by way of
interim arrangement, but the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have stopped
the supply of the said Non-PDS Kerosene Oil to the petitioner, and
feeling aggrieved of the same, the instant writ petition has been
preferred challenging the impugned action on part of the Consumer
Affairs Department.
5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent Nos. 4 and
5 have acted in violation of order passed by this Court, which
continues to be operative as on date and the said respondents without
any rhyme or reason have stopped the supply of said Non-PDS
Kerosene Oil to the petitioner.
6. With a view to fortify his claim, learned Senior Counsel has drawn
the attention of this Court to communication dated 28.10.2019,
issued by the Assistant Director FCS & CA Leh to the Deputy
Manager IOC Leh, evidencing the fact that the petitioner continues
to be an authorized dealer for issuance of Non-PDS Kerosene Oil to
departments/consumers of District Leh. It is not so, even the depots
have issued a customer code in favour of M/S Ladakh Kerosene
Depot, Leh.
7. In addition, it has also been argued by Mr. Sethi that till date, there is
no change of circumstances which could have given justifiable cause
to the respondents not to supply the said Non-PDS Kerosene Oil to
the petitioner, as the direction was granted only by way of an interim
arrangement till the guidelines/rules are framed and is in vogue.
8. It is a specific case of the petitioner that the position which was
existing way back in 2022 continues to be same as on date and there
is no change of circumstances which could have given justifiable
cause to the respondents not to supply the said Non-PDS Kerosene
Oil to the petitioner, as till date, no fresh guidelines/rules vis-a-vis
Non-PDS Kerosene Oil have been framed. Thus, the action of the
respondents cannot sustain the test of law and is liable to be set aside.
9. The record reveals that instant petition was listed before this Court
on 31.01.2026, on which date, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of Indian Oil Corporation, Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina, has made a
categorical statement at the Bar that the Indian Oil Corporation
limited has already issued a supply order on 29.01.2026, in favour of
respondent No. 5 and now it is for the respondent No. 5 to further
supply the same to the petitioner in conformity with the order dated
09.12.2022, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 2657/2022, which
continues to be operative as on date.
10. With a view to fortify his claim, Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina, learned
counsel has also placed on record the invoice evidencing the fact that
the supply has since been made on said date, which copy has already
been taken on record. Thus, in light of the statement made by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and
also the fact that interim direction passed by this Court has been
implemented in letter and spirit for more than three years, no
justifiable reason has been projected by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for
stopping the said supply of Non-PDS Kerosene Oil to the petitioner.
11. Thus, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, prima facie case
for indulgence is made out.
12. Issue notice to the respondents, which is waived by Mr. Anuj Dewan
Raina, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and
2. Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, learned GA appearing vice Mr. Vishal
Sharma, learned DGSI waived notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 3
to 5.
13. In the meantime, subject to objections and till next date of hearing
before the Bench, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are directed to supply
Non-PDS Kerosene Oil to the petitioner, as the same has already
being supplied to said respondent No. 5 by respondent No. 1 i.e.
Indian Oil Corporation, strictly in tune with order passed by this
Court dated 09.12.2022 in WP(C) No. 2657/2022, till the
guidelines/rules are framed. Alteration/modification on laying
motion.
14. Registry is directed to tag and list the instant petition along with
WP(C) No. 2657/2022 on 10.02.2026.
15. In the meantime, let the response be filed on behalf of the
respondents positively so that an endeavour is made to consider both
the petitions on the said date.
16. List on 10.02.2026.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE
Jammu
03.02.2026
Vishal Khajuria
