[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Trualt Bioenergy Limited vs Union Of India on 4 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 08.12.2025
Pronounced on : 04.02.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.108611 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. TRUALT BIOENERGY LIMITED
A COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
SY. NO. 166, KULALI CROSS
JAMKHANDI MUDHOL ROAD
BAGALKOT - 587 313
REPRESENTED BY
DANAYYA SHIVAYYA JAGADAL.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI AJAY KADKOL T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM
AND NATUARAL GAS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
KARTAVYA BHAVAN - 03
JANPATH, NEW DELHI - 110 001
2
REPRESENTED BY ITS
JOINT SECRETAY.
2. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
BHARAT BHAVAN
4 AND 6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD
BELLARD ESTATE,
MUMBAI - 400 001
MAHARASHTRA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
PETROLEUM HOUSE 17
JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD
MUMBAI - 400 020
MAHARASHTRA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN
G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG
BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA - 400 051
REPRESENTED ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.B.KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI C.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE
WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.2
TO 4 TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN
RELATION TO THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.10.2025 FILED BY
3
THE PETITIONER, SEEKING AN EXTENSION OF TIME BY A PERIOD
OF 90 (NINETY) DAYS FOR THE SUPPLY OF THE SHORTFALL
QUANTITY OF 1,56,292 KL (ONE LAKH FIFTY SIX THOUSAND TWO
HUNDRED AND NINETY TWO) OF ETHANOL DULY ALLOTTED TO
THE PETITIONER FOR THE THIRD (Q3) AND FOURTH (Q4)
QUARTERS OF THE ETHANOL SUPPLY YEAR 2024-25 WHICH IS
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE -A (COLLY).
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 08.12.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following
prayer: -
a. "Pass an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the
Respondents No.2 to 4 to take necessary steps in accordance
with law, in relation to the Representation dated 23.10.2025
filed by the Petitioner, seeking an extension of time by a
period of 90 (Ninety) days for the supply of the shortfall
quantity of 1,56,292 KL (One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Two
Hundred and Ninety Two) of ethanol duly allotted to the
Petitioner for the third (Q3) and fourth (Q4) Quarters of the
Ethanol Supply Year 2024-25 which is produced as
ANNEXURE -"A" (colly);
AND / OR
b. Pass such other Order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the ends of justice."
4
2. Heard Sri S.S.Naganand, learned senior counsel appearing
for petitioner, Sri M.B.Kanavi, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 and Sri C.V.Angadi, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents 2 to 4.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -
3.1. The petitioner - M/s TruAlt Bioenergy Limited (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Company' for short) is involved in the production
of biofuel products with its principal focus on the manufacture and
supply of ethanol. The respondents 2 to 4 are all oil manufacturing
companies - BPCL, HPCL and IOCL. The 2nd respondent/Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited is a coordinating agency appointed
by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas for floating the tender
for manufacturing of ethanol. On 07-12-2023, a notification is
issued by the Director of Sugar, Department of Food and Public
Distribution, Government of India prohibiting all distilleries including
the petitioner from the use of sugarcane juice or sugar syrup for
the purpose of manufacture of ethanol. This ban comes to be
challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.107956 of 2023
5
which comes to be disposed of on 25-04-2024. During 2024, the
ban on the usage of sugarcane juice and sugar syrup for
manufacture of ethanol was lifted for the ethanol supply year
2024-25.
3.2. Pursuant to lifting of ban, bids were called by the 2nd
respondent on behalf of all the Oil Marketing Companies ('OMCs' for
short) and Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited for the
supply of Denatured Anhydrous Ethanol to the OMCs for all four
quarters of the Ethanol Supply Year. The petitioner submits its bid
on 25-07-2025 and emerged as a successful bidder in some of the
bids. On 23-09-2025 another tender notification comes to be issued
for supply of 1050 crore liters of ethanol. It is then the petitioner
submits a detailed representation narrating several facts and
seeking permission to supply the shortfall quantity within 90 days
from the date communication of the representation in the already
allotted tender. On 24-10-2025, the petitioner again emerges as a
successful tenderer and was issued a letter of award for the tender
notification dated 23-09-2025 for the ethanol supply year 2025-26.
Aggrieved by the non-consideration of the representation for
6
extension of time up to 90 days, the petitioner is before this Court
in the subject petition.
4. The learned senior counsel Sri S.S.Naganand appearing for
the petitioner would vehemently contend that the shortfall in the
supply of ethanol was due to extraneous factors beyond the control
of the petitioner and not due to any omission. The ban imposed was
so abrupt, as it took time to make the alternate arrangements. It is
his submission that due to unforeseeable ban, the petitioner was
forced to draw ethanol from other sources by establishing a multi-
feed manufacturing unit. Therefore, lot of costs for establishment of
multi-feed unit was incurred by the petitioner, as many farmers
were dependent on the petitioner for their employment and
livelihood. In these circumstances the petitioner sought extension
to fulfill the complete contractual obligation. This is not considered
which is unreasonable, is the submission of the learned senior
counsel.
5. Per-contra, the learned counsel Sri C.V.Angadi appearing
for the respondents 2 to 4 would vehemently refute the
7
submissions in contending that the petitioner has not established
any arbitrariness or mala fides in the action of the respondents.
They only need ethanol to the extent of 20%. The offers made by
the petitioner are surplus. Mandamus can be granted only if there is
a statutory duty imposed. The ban has been upheld by the
coordinate Bench and, therefore, no fault can be found with the
hands of the Union for imposing the ban. On the said issue it cannot
be that the petitioner would get a right to seek extension for
fulfillment of the conditions of tender. He seeks dismissal of the
petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
7. The position of the petitioner and the respondents is not in
dispute. A notification comes to be issued by Government of India
prohibiting distilleries including the petitioner/Company from using
sugarcane juice or sugar syrup for manufacture of ethanol. It is the
case of the petitioner that the Notification came as a shock and was
8
so abrupt that it has caused unforeseeable disruption in production
of ethanol. The petitioner/Company being a standalone ethanol
unit was entirely dependent on sugarcane as primary feedstock for
ethanol production and, therefore, was severely affected by the
ban. The petitioner/Company challenged the ban before this Court
in Writ Petition No.107956 of 2023 and the coordinate Bench
disposes of the said petition on 25-04-2024 by the following
observations:
".... .... ....
36. Answer to Point No.4: Whether the impugned
orders are violative of Article 19 (1)(g) since the
restriction now imposed is not reasonable?
36.1. By relying on the decisions in Modern Dental
College, Akshay N. Patel and Association
for Democratic Reforms, the submissions of
both the side is that the State is empowered to
make any law, but while doing so, the interest
of the general public, the balancing of the
fundamental rights has to be made, which is
known as Doctrine of Proportionality, such as
the Rule determining the necessary and
sufficient conditions. The doctrine of
proportionality could be defined as set of rules
determining the necessary and coefficient
conditions for the limitation of the
constitutionally protected right by law,
constitutionally permissible. Both the said
counsel submit that the limitation on the
constitutional right will be constitutionally
permissible if (1) it is designated for a proper
purpose; (2) the measures undertaken to
9
effectuate such a limitation are rationally
connected to the fulfillment of that purpose (3)
the measures undertaken are necessary in that
there are no alternative measures that may
similarly achieve that same purpose with a
lesser degree of limitations and finally (4) there
needs to be a proper relation between the
importance of achieving the proper purpose and
the social importance of preventing the
limitations on the constitution right.
36.2. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners
is that none of these tests are satisfied,
whereas submission on part of the Central
Government is that all these tests are satisfied.
36.3. It is these two contradictory arguments which
have to be considered by this Court with
reference to the aforesaid decision to ascertain
if the Doctrine of Proportionality is satisfied or
not.
36.4. Insofar as first test of being designated for a
proper purpose is concerned, there cannot be
much doubt on this inasmuch as sugarcane
juice or sugar syrup is an ingredient for both
sugar and ethanol. The quantum of usage made
for production of ethanol would naturally have a
consequence on the quantum available for
manufacturing of sugar. The purpose in the
present matter being to ensure higher
production of sugar and/or maintain the existing
production of sugar by making available
sugarcane, sugarcane syrup, sugar syrup for
the manufacture of sugar without diverting the
same for manufacture of ethanol, would satisfy
the requirement of designation for a proper
purpose and as such, the first test in the
present matter is satisfied.
36.5. Insofar as the second test relating to the
measure undertaken is to effectuate such a
situation which is rationally connected to the
10
fulfillment of that purpose. As afore described
and dealt with sugarcane juice and sugar syrup
being the sole raw material for the manufacture
of sugar, any reduction in the same or quantum
of raw material declining would have a direct
impact on the manufacture of sugar. Thus, I am
of the considered opinion that even the second
test is satisfied. Thus the limitation imposed on
use of sugarcane juice or sugar syrup for the
manufacture of ethanol will have a direct
positive impact on the manufacture of sugar
relating to a higher production thereof.
36.6. As regards the third test, as aforesaid, the
sugarcane juice and/or sugar syrup being the
essential raw material for the manufacture of
sugar, there being drought and reduced rain,
which has resulted in lesser production of
sugarcane, the said sugar cane being a water
intensive crop. It is clear that if there is less
sugar cane juice and/or less sugar syrup
available there would be less sugar which can
be produced. The production of sugar cane juice
itself having gone down, it is essential for the
Central Government to make available as much
sugar cane juice and sugar syrup as possible for
the manufacture of sugar, the lesser production
of sugar cane being on account of Act of God ,
there being no other viable alternative being
available for the manufacture of sugar other
than use of sugar cane juice and sugar syrup, I
am of the considered opinion that the measures
undertaken by the Central Government are
proper and correct and there is no alternative
measure which could have been resorted too by
the Central Government in such a situation.
36.7. There is however some credence in the
submission made by Mr Navadgi as regards
other bulk users of Sugar or Sugar Syrup or
Sugar Cane Juice not being imposed upon and
regulation.
11
36.8. In as much as there are bulk manufacturers of
beverages, sweets, chocolates, confectionary
etc., who are bulk consumers of sugar, this
sugar once consumed by such bulk
manufacturers, sugar to that extent would not
be available in the local market for purchase
and consumption by a citizen. Which would also
mean that the price of sugar is also determined
by the demand for sugar by such bulk
consumers.
36.9. Furthermore there being large scale export of
these beverages, sweets, chocolates,
confectionary etc., the sugar manufactured in
India is used for the purpose of manufacture of
above goods which are exported and consumed
outside India. This aspect has been completely
ignored by the authorities while imposing the
present restriction of use of Sugarcane Juice,
Sugar Syrup and B Heavy Molasses on
manufacture of Ethanol. Since the Ethanol
supply year has nearly come to a closure and
the Interim order granted by a co-ordinate
bench of this court has protected the Petitioners
to some extent, in the event of the restriction
being extended for the next ethanol supply
year, then in such event the authorities will also
have to impose such restrictions on bulk
users/consumers of sugar, sugarcane
juice/sugar syrup/ B heavy molasses, since for
such bulk users sugar is not an essential
commodity but is only a commodity of
commerce. All persons or entities who use
sugar, sugarcane juice/sugar syrup/ B heavy
molasses as a commodity of commerce or to
manufacture a commodity of commerce would
have to yield to the requirements of a citizen of
the country to use sugar by itself as an essential
commodity. This alternative has not been
explored by the authorities, which could well
negate the 3rd test laid down, however taking
into account that there was no much time to
control the use of raw material for purpose of
12
manufacture of sugar, this non - consideration
for now is not held against the authorities. In
the event of the restriction being extended it
would be required that the authorities take into
consideration all alternatives available including
imposition of restriction of such bulk consumers
as may be required and towards that end the
ethanol manufacturers and bulk consumers are
treated on the same footing.
36.10. In view of the correlation and answer to
Points No.1, 2 and 3 above, I am of the
considered opinion that there is a proper
relation between the restriction imposed
and object sought to be achieved. Since the
restriction imposed is with an intention to
maintain the production of sugar as done
for the last season, so as to make available
similar amount/quantum of sugar for the
general populus so as to further ensure
that there is no increase in the price of
sugar which would affect every citizen of
the country since he or she would not be
able to purchase the sugar on account of
increase in the price thereof.
36.11. The decision in Chintamanrao's case, which
deals with reasonable restrictions and defines
reasonable restrictions, would not help the
petitioners in the present case since the
restrictions being temporary and the restrictions
being imposed due to drought situation cannot
be firstly said to be unreasonable. Secondly I
find that such restriction is reasonable in order
to cater to the requirements of the general
public. The decision in Internet & Mobile
Assn. of India's case supra, would also not
be applicable to the present facts inasmuch as
the restrictions again is a temporary once, only
for this year and has been imposed only in the
exceptional circumstances. If the rains are good
in the next year, the restrictions would not be
13
imposed and the petitioners would be free to bid
for any contracts issued by the OMCs.
36.12. Hence, I answer Points No.3 and 4 by
holding that the impugned orders are not
irrational or arbitrary, and have taken into
account the overall requirement of the
Country and the population. It would not
be necessary to go into the production
capacity of each sugar factory or distillery.
This being a temporary arrangement, as
and when there are more rains and there is
more production of sugarcane, this
restriction would not apply. The present
restriction being applicable to the ethanol
supply year 2023-24 will not apply to the
next year unless another notification is
issued.
37. Answer to Point No.5: Whether the impugned
orders could be issued in light of the promises held
out by the State that manufacturers could set up
ethanol manufacturing plants and the manufactured
ethanol could be purchased by the State?
37.1. The contention of the petitioner is that there is a
legitimate expectation on part of the petitioners
that adequate raw material would be provided
to the petitioners to manufacture ethanol as per
the ethanol policy which envisages 25% of the
petroleum products to be blended with ethanol.
As of now only 10-12% of the petroleum
product being blended with ethanol, the
petitioners had invested huge amounts of
money under the hope that they will get more
contracts to achieve 25% ethanol blended
petroleum.
37.2. The policy is also held out to be a basis for
invoking the principle of promissory estoppel.
The petitioners contended that due to the
representations made, the petitioners have
changed their position in such a way that if the
14
promises were not to be implemented, the
petitioners would suffer irreparable harmony.
Both these aspects would arise only if there is a
permanency in the decision taken by the Centre
or the State.
37.3. That is to say, if the Centre or the State
had taken a stand that in future there
won't be any blending of ethanol with
petroleum products, then the submissions
made by the petitioners would be said to
be correct and the applicability of the
principles of legitimate expectations and
promissory estoppel could be looked into.
However, in the present case, the steps
taken by the Authorities are only
temporary in nature necessitated by the
drought in the sugarcane farming areas,
which has resulted in lesser production of
sugarcane. As observed above, if there is
more rain in the next monsoon or the next
season, then this restriction which has
been imposed for this year may not be
extended for the next year and the
situation would revert to what it was last
year/last season. This being a temporary
phase applicable for only this year,
introduced by the Authorities only to see to
it that sugar is manufactured to the extent
required so as not to increase the price of
sugar.
37.4. The State discharging its sovereign
functionality in making available essential
commodity like sugar to the general
populus as also ensuring that there is
adequate amount of sugar which is
manufactured. The commercial interest of
industrial unit like the petitioner ought to
yield to larger public interest so that larger
public interest is not adversely affected
due to the commercial industrial interest
like that of the petitioners.
15
37.5. The invocation of legitimate expectations
and/or promissory estoppel would arise
only when all things being equal and there
is no change in circumstances and/or that
there is no higher obligations imposed on
the State/Centre, to be discharged greater
than the promise held out.
37.6. Though it is contended by the learned Additional
Solicitor General that the principle of promissory
estoppel would not apply by contending that
what has been only made available is a promise
to charge lesser interest on loans made
available for setting up of ethanol
manufacturing units either standalone or
otherwise. I am unable to agree with the
submission of the learned Additional Solicitor
General inasmuch as the whole purpose of
borrowing loans is to set up an ethanol
manufacturing unit which would serve no
purpose, if there is a restriction on manufacture
of ethanol.
37.7. The distillery set up by the petitioners
being one which can be used for
manufacture of ethanol by using sugarcane
juice or sugar syrup, it cannot be now
contended by the authorities that there is
no promise held out to promote the
manufacture of ethanol.
37.8. The very purpose of taking a loan is to set
up a distillery, to set up the plant which in
turn is for manufacture of ethanol. The
loan is required to be serviced by the sale
of ethanol manufactured in the plant. If
ethanol is not manufactured or capable of
being manufactured, the question of
servicing the loan would not arise. Thus, I
am of the considered opinion that there is
a legitimate expectation on part of the
manufacturer that the policy held out
16
would be implemented that the Ministry of
Petroleum would endeavour to promote
blending of ethanol in petroleum products
more particularly petrol/gasoline to an
extent of 25% of total consumption and as
such, there is a legitimate expectation on
the part of the ethanol manufacturer that
the ethanol manufactured by them would
be procured by the OMCs for such blending.
37.9. The petitioners have also changed their
stand and position on the basis of the
promises held out, have borrowed loans,
set up the ethanol manufacturing plants
and have infact started manufacturing
ethanol under the hope that such ethanol
manufactured by them would be purchased
by the State. Though the principles of
legitimate expectations and promissory
estoppel are applicable, the same would
also Comment have to be considered by
this Court taking into account the larger
public interest.
37.10. The decision Brahmputra Metallics Ltd's
case supra, would not be applicable, taking
into consideration the above reasoning
inasmuch as the circumstances having
changed, the representations which had
been made by the authorities and the
expectations that any business entity or
citizen of India can have has to be taken
into consideration contextually. The
context having changed and there being
higher obligations imposed on the State to
make available the essential commodity
like sugar to the citizens, the changed
circumstances which are in force
temporarily cannot make principles of
legitimate expectation and promissory
estoppel apply in all their rigor.
17
37.11. Doctrine of proportionality would also
require that no person suffers due to no
fault of his or the extent of sufferance is
brought to a minimum. Thus it would have
to be taken note of that many of the
petitioners have borrowed loans in order to
set up their ethanol manufacturing unit
and are required to Post immediately after
service of notice upon respondent No.2.
the loans. The non utilisation of the unit is
not on account of any fault on part of the
Petitioners but is on account of the Act of
State in stopping the availability of raw
material for use of the manufacturing unit.
In that view of the matter, the authorities
would have to come to the rescue of
manufacturers who have taken such loan
and grant such moratorium as required
during the period the restriction is in force,
from making payment of both the principal
and interest as regards the said loan.
37.12. Similarly it would also be for the
authorities to protect and safeguard the
workers who were employed with the
petitioners, who would now be out of a job
for atleast temporary period during which
the manufacture is stopped.
37.13. Hence, I answer Point No.5 by holding
that though legitimate expectations and
promissory estoppel would be applicable to
the present case, the same cannot be
invoked by the petitioners in view of the
impugned orders having been issued in the
larger public interest of making available
an essential commodity like sugar to the
general populus and thereby performing an
essential sovereign function towards the
citizens."
.... .... ....
18
"ORDER
i) The Writ petitions are disposed.
ii) The petitioners are restrained from generating any
more 'B' heavy molasses and/or purchasing 'B'
heavy molasses from the market.
iii) The OMCs shall procure the ethanol already
manufactured by the petitioners from the
petitioners within a period of three weeks
from today.
iv) Such of the petitioners who have a stock of 'B'
heavy molasses are permitted to manufacture
ethanol from such stock which manufacturing
process is to be completed within eight weeks from
now. On such manufacturing being complete or
during the process of manufacture, OMCs are
directed to procure the ethanol manufactured from
such 'B' heavy molasses in terms of the contract
already entered into by the OMCs with the
manufacturers.
v) The impugned orders being applicable only for this
year and being subject to review by the Group of
Ministers, the applicability or otherwise of the said
impugned order for the next year would depend on
the deliberations and opinion of the Group of
Ministers who would have all the necessary
information and resources at their disposal to make
such decisions taking into account the observations
made herein.
vi) The Respondents are directed to come up with
such policy or moratorium as required during
the time the restriction is in force so as to
provide succour to the petitioners from
making payment of the principal and/or
interest on any loan borrowed for
establishment of an ethanol manufacturing
unit and/or ancillary units thereof.
vii) The Respondents are directed to come up with
such policy or scheme as required during the
time the restriction is in force so as to provide
for the workers of the ethanol manufacturing
19
units who will loose their job on account of
the restrictions imposed from and out of the
funds of the Central Government."
(Emphasis supplied)
The coordinate Bench holds that the ban was a necessity in the
larger public good. Therefore, no fault could be found with the ban
so imposed. However, the respondents were directed to evolve a
policy to provide succor to the petitioner. The coordinate Bench also
holds that OMCs should procure ethanol already manufactured by
the petitioner from the petitioner within a period of three months.
The respondents were also directed to come up with a policy or
moratorium as required during the time restriction was in force.
After the aforesaid order was passed by the coordinate Bench, the
ban comes to be lifted for ethanol supply year 2024-25. Therefore,
the petitioner was again back to the rank of usage of sugarcane
syrup or sugarcane juice for the purpose of manufacture of ethanol.
8. A tender notification comes to be issued on 01-07-2025 for
the supply of several crore liters of ethanol. The tender notified on
20
01-07-2025 had references of several tenders earlier notified. They
are as follows:
• Tender dated 06-12-2024 bearing reference No.1000423858 (C-
2/18307 for supply of around 88 crore liters for Q4 of ESY 2024-
25 in August, September and October, 2025
21
• Tender dated 29-01-2025 bearing reference No.1000423858 (C-
3)/18791 for supply of around 124 crore liters for Q2 & Q3 of
ESY 2024-25 in February, March & April, 2025 and May, June &
July, 2025,
22
• Tender dated 15-05-2025 bearing Reference No.1000423858
(C-4)/20726 for supply of around 29 crore liters for Q3 of ESY
2024-25 in June & July,2025.
23
• Tender dated 01-07-2025 bearing Reference No.1000423858
(C-5)/21346 for supply of around 49 crore liters for Q4 of ESY
2024-25 in August, September & October, 2025."
The petitioner submits its bid to the aforementioned tender and
emerges as a successful bidder. Allocation was made for supply of
total quantity of 1,85,481 KL to be supplied to respondents 2 and 4
for the third quarter and 4th quarter of the ethanol supply year
2024-25.
24
9. The petitioner's case is that, it was unable to supply
allotted quantity of ethanol in full due to circumstances beyond its
control. This, in the first blush, cannot be accepted, as the
petitioner did participate in the tender, knowing full well that the
coordinate Bench had directed the OMCs to purchase ethanol that
was already manufactured. The petitioner then projects that it had
incurred huge costs for establishment of alternate units for
production of ethanol due to ban which was totaling to ₹2321
crores. The petitioner on that score did a shortfall of supply
amounting to 1,56,292 KL, as against the allotted quantity of
1,85,481 KL. The respondents then again notified a fresh tender on
23-09-2025 for supply of 1050 crore liters of ethanol for ethanol
supply year 2025-26. The petitioner emerges successful. In the
interregnum, it submits detailed representations, three in number,
given to all three OMCs. The representations read as follows:
"To, 23 October, 2025
Mr. Anurag Saraogi
Chief General Manager - Biofuels
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
BPCL Complex, Sewri
Mumbai 400015 (Maharashtra)
By Registered Post Acknowledgement Due
25
&
Email Communication
Dear Sir,
Subject: Request for extension of time for supply of the shortfall
quantity of ethanol allotted for Q3 and Q4 of the
Ethanol Supply Year 2024-25 for a period of 90 days
from the date of this communication
1. We are one of India's largest biofuel producers,
strategically positioned as a leading and diversified entity
in the Indian biofuels sector, with a primary focus on the
production and supply of ethanol.
2. For and in connection with the supply of Denatured
Anhydrous Ethanol to the Oil Marketing Companies
(OMCs), bids were invited for all four quarters of the
Ethanol Supply Year (ESY) 2024-25 under Tender
Reference Nos. 1000423858 (C-1)/17893 dated
26.09.2024, C-2/18307 dated 06.12.2024, C-3/18795
dated 29.01.2025, and C-5/21346 dated 01.07.2025.
3. We submitted our bids pursuant to the aforesaid tenders
and emerged successful therein. Accordingly, Letters of
Award (LOAs) dated 02.05.2025 for Q3, and
subsequently, LOA dated 25.07.2025 were issued in our
favour for the period Q4 of the ESY 2024-25 by Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), and Indian Oil
Corporation Limited (IOCL)
4. In terms of the allocation made under the said tender
process, a total quantity of 1,85,481 (One Lakh Eighty
Five Thousand Four Hundred Eighty One) KL was duly
allotted to us for being supplied to the OMCs for the third
and fourth Quarters of the ESY 2024-25.
5. However, owing to circumstances wholly beyond our
control, we were unable to supply the allotted quantity of
ethanol in full for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25.
26
6. The reasons for such short supply are twofold. Firstly, the
Notification bearing No.F.No.3(2)/2023-SP dated
07.12.2023, issued by the Director of Sugar, Department
of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India,
prohibited all distilleries, including our entity, frown the
use of sugarcane juice or sugar syrup for the manufacture
of ethanol for ESY 2023-24, with immediate effect.
7. The said Notification was issued abruptly and without any
prior notice, leaving no time for us to adapt or make
alternate arrangements, thereby causing an
unforeseeable disruption in production of ethanol,
8. We laid a challenge to the said Notification in Writ Petition
No. 107956 of 2023, which petition was disposed of on
25.04.2024, wherein the Hon'ble Court of Karnataka at
was pleased to direct the OMCs to purchase the ethanol
that had already been produced by us. However, the ban
on the use of sugarcane juice and sugar syrup for the
manufacture of ethanol was lifted only in the subsequent
ESY of 2024-25.
9. However, pursuant to the aforesaid Notification, we being
a standalone ethanol manufacturing unit entirely
dependent on sugarcane as the primary feedstock for
ethanol production, were severely affected, resulting in a
complete disruption of our operations.
10. Secondly, in light of the said ban, we took steps for the
establishment of a multi-feed manufacturing unit to
enable production of ethanol from alternative feedstocks.
For this purpose, we were constrained to avail substantial
loans and also raise capital from the public through an
Initial Public Offering (IPO), a process that was both time
consuming and financially demanding.
11. For the initial establishment of the five units our Plant, we
have incurred a total capex of Rs.1853 Crores (Rupees
One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Three Crores)
which includes loans from various financial institutions
including Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency
Limited (IREDA), State Bank of India, Kotak Mahindra
Bank, Canara Bank and the Indian Overseas Bank.
27
12. Subsequently, for the purpose of converting two Units of
our Plant to multi-feed operations, we have incurred a
capex cost of Rs.296 crores (Two Hundred and Ninety Six
Crores). Further, for the conversion of another Unit of our
Plant to multi-feed capability, we were constrained to
raise an additional amount of Rs. 172 Crores (Rupees One
Hundred and Seventy Two Crores) by way of an IPO in
public markets. Such immediate financial measures were
necessitated solely on account of the Notification issued
by the Government of India referred to supra, which left
no alternative but to restructure and adapt our operations
to ensure continuity of production.
13. Therefore, for the purpose of establishing our entire
ethanol manufacturing infrastructure and to effectively
contribute to the Government of India's Ethanol Blending
Programme. we have incurred a total capex cost of
Rs.2,321 Crores (Rupees Two Thousand Three Hundred
and Twenty One Crores).
14. Notwithstanding the severe financial hardship caused by
the disruption in production, we have been diligently
honouring all our repayment obligations and have
continued to pay every loan instalment along with interest
on time and without a single default, upholding our
credibility with the lending institutions.
15. The entire process of financing and establishing the multi-
feed manufacturing unit, however, consumed
considerable time and resources and the same was
necessitated solely on account of the ill effects posed by
the Notification referred to supra. But for the said
restriction imposed by the Notification supra, we would
have continued manufacturing ethanol from sugarcane in
the ordinary and uninterrupted course of our operations
and there certainly would have been no disruption
whatsoever in the supply of ethanol by us.
16. Further, during the Financial Year 2024-25, we have
disbursed employee salaries amounting to Rs.39.85
Crores (Rupees Thirty Nine Crores and Eighty Five Lakhs
only) and have incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,042.68
28
Crores (Rupees One Thousand Forty Two Crores and Sixty
Eight Lakhs only) towards procurement of raw materials
for the said year.
17. Owing to the bonafide reasons detailed hereinabove, out
of the 1,76,207 (One Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Two
Hundred and Seven) KL of ethanol allotted to us for Q3
and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25 (after price reduction), we
were unable to supply 1,56,292 (One Lakh Fifty Six
Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two) KL within the
stipulated period, despite having taken every possible
step and made earnest efforts to effect the said supply in
time, which in fact is a minute fraction of the total
allocated quantities.
18. We respectfully submit that the aforesaid shortfall has
occurred for bonafide and unavoidable reasons beyond
our control, arising primarily out of policy decisions of the
Government of India which took us by surprises and
uncertainty. We have at all times acted with utmost
diligence and transparency and at no stage has there
been any lapse, delay, or omission on our part in
performing our obligations under the terms of the tender.
19. In fact, it is pertinent to mention here that we were able
to commission a unit of our Plant for multi-feed
operations within a record period of about eight months,
whereas the entire process ordinarily takes not less than
twelve to fourteen months. This was achieved despite the
fact that the IPO, which was originally scheduled to open
in December 2024, had to be deferred to October 2025
owing to adverse market conditions further demonstrating
our commitment and resolve to restore full scale
production at the earliest
20. The aforesaid shortfall quantity of ethanol amounting to
1,56,292 (One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred and
Ninety Two) KL, allocated to us under the Tender
Reference Nos. 1000423858 (C-1)/17893 dated
26.09.2024, C-2/18307 dated 06.12.2024, C-3/18795
dated 29.01.2025, and C-5/21346 dated 01.07.2025
pursuant to which the LOAs dated 02.05.2025 and
25.07.2025 for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25
29
respectively were issued by BPCL, HPCL, and IOCL is now
ready to be produced and supplied. Our plants are fully
operational, raw materials have been duly procured from
local farmers by spending several crores of rupees, and
we are in complete readiness to manufacture and supply
the aforesaid shortfall quantity within a period of 90
(Ninety) days from the date of this communication
We therefore request you to read and consider the
aforenarrated facts and Circumstances and further, take
such steps as may be necessary to permit us to supply
the shortfall part of 1,56,292 (One Lakh Fifty Six
Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two) KL of
ethanol within a period of 90 (Ninety) days from the date
of this communication, in terms of the allocations made
under Tender Reference Nos. 1000423858 (C-1)/17893 -
dated 26.09.2024, C-2/18307 dated 06.12.2024, C-
3/18795 dated 29.01.2025, and C-5/21346 dated
01.07.2025, pursuant to which Letters of Award (LOAS)
dated 02.05.2025 and 25.07.2005 were issued by BPCL,
HPCL, and IOCL for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25,
respectively.
We remain optimistic that your good offices would
certainly consider the request made in this
communication favorably, for which acts of indulgence on
your part, we shall remain ever grateful.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
For M/s.TruAlt Bioenergy Limited
Having its registered office at,
Sy.No.166, Kulali Cross
Jamkhandi Mudhol Road
Bagalkot - 587313"
.... .... ....
"To, 23 October,
2025
30
Mr. Chandra Prakash Mishra
Deputy General Manager
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
Hindustan Bhavan, Ballard Estate
Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra)
By Registered Post Acknowledgement Due
&
Email Communication
Dear Sir,
Subject: Request for extension of time for supply of the
shortfall quantity of ethanol allotted for Q3 and
Q4 of the Ethanol Supply Year 2024-25 for a
period of 90 days from the date of this
communication
1. We are one of India's largest biofuel producers,
strategically positioned as a leading and diversified entity
in the Indian biofuels sector, with a primary focus on the
production and supply of ethanol.
2. For and in connection with the supply of Denatured
Anhydrous Ethanol to the Oil Marketing Companies
(OMCs), bids were invited for all four quarters of the
Ethanol Supply Year (ESY) 2024-25 under Tender
Reference Nos. 1000423858 (C-1)/17893 dated
26.09.2024, C-2/18307 dated 06.12.2024, C-3/18795
dated 29.01.2025, and C-5/21346 dated 01.07.2025.
3. We submitted our bids pursuant to the aforesaid tenders
and emerged successful therein. Accordingly, Letters of
Award (LOAs) dated 02.05.2025 for Q3, and
subsequently, LOA dated 25.07.2025 were issued in our
favour for the period Q4 of the ESY 2024-25 by Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), and Indian Oil
Corporation Limited (IOCL)
4. In terms of the allocation made under the said tender
process, a total quantity of 1,85,481 (One Lakh Eighty
31
Five Thousand Four Hundred Eighty One) KL was duly
allotted to us for being supplied to the OMCs for the third
and fourth Quarters of the ESY 2024-25.
5. However, owing to circumstances wholly beyond our
control, we were unable to supply the allotted quantity of
ethanol in full for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25.
6. The reasons for such short supply are twofold. Firstly, the
Notification bearing No.F.No.3(2)/2023-SP dated
07.12.2023, issued by the Director of Sugar, Department
of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India,
prohibited all distilleries, including our entity, from the
use of sugarcane juice or sugar syrup for the manufacture
of ethanol for ESY 2023-24, with immediate effect.
7. The said Notification was issued abruptly and without any
prior notice, leaving no time for us to adapt or make
alternate arrangements, thereby causing an
unforeseeable disruption in production of ethanol.
8. We laid a challenge to the said Notification in Writ Petition
No. 107956 of 2023, which petition was disposed of on
25.04.2024, wherein the Hon'ble Court of Karnataka at
Dharwad was pleased to direct the OMCs to purchase the
ethanol that had already been produced by us. However,
the ban on the use of sugarcane juice and sugar syrup for
the manufacture of ethanol was lifted only in the
subsequent ESY of 2024-25.
9. However, pursuant to the aforesaid Notification, we being
a standalone ethanol manufacturing unit entirely
dependent on sugarcane as the primary feedstock for
ethanol production, were severely affected, resulting in a
complete disruption of our operations.
10. Secondly, in light of the said ban, we took steps for the
establishment of a multi-feed manufacturing unit to
enable production of ethanol from alternative feedstocks.
For this purpose, we were constrained to avail substantial
loans and also raise capital from the public through an
Initial Public Offering (IPO), a process that was both time
consuming and financially demanding.
32
11. For the initial establishment of the five units our Plant, we
have incurred a total capex of Rs.1853 Crores (Rupees
One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Three Crores)
which includes loans from various financial institutions
including Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency
Limited (IREDA), State Bank of India, Kotak Mahindra
Bank, Canara Bank and the Indian Overseas Bank.
12. Subsequently, for the purpose of converting two Units of
our Plant to multi-feed operations, we have incurred a
capex cost of Rs.296 crores (Two Hundred and Ninety Six
Crores). Further, for the conversion of another Unit of our
Plant to multi-feed capability, we were constrained to
raise an additional amount of Rs. 172 Crores (Rupees One
Hundred and Seventy Two Crores) by way of an IPO in
public markets. Such immediate financial measures were
necessitated solely on account of the Notification issued
by the Government of India referred to supra, which left
no alternative but to restructure and adapt our operations
to ensure continuity of production.
13. Therefore, for the purpose of establishing our entire
ethanol manufacturing infrastructure and to effectively
contribute to the Government of India's Ethanol Blending
Programme, we have incurred a total capex cost of
Rs.2,321 Crores (Rupees Two Thousand Three Hundred
and Twenty One Crores).
14. Notwithstanding the severe financial hardship caused by
the disruption in production, we have been diligently
honouring all our repayment obligations and have
continued to pay every loan instalment along with interest
on time and without a single default, upholding our
credibility with the lending institutions.
15. The entire process of financing and establishing the multi-
feed manufacturing unit, however, consumed
considerable time and resources and the same was
necessitated solely on account of the ill effects posed by
the Notification referred to supra. But for the said
restriction imposed by the Notification supra, we would
have continued manufacturing ethanol from sugarcane in
33
the ordinary and uninterrupted course of our operations
and there certainly would have been no disruption
whatsoever in the supply of ethanol by us.
16. Further, during the Financial Year 2024-25, we have
disbursed employee salaries amounting to Rs.39.85
Crores (Rupees Thirty Nine Crores and Eighty Five Lakhs
only) and have incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,042.68
Crores (Rupees One Thousand Forty Two Crores and Sixty
Eight Lakhs only) towards procurement of raw materials
for the said year.
17. Owing to the bonafide reasons detailed hereinabove, out
of the 1,76,207 (One Lakh Seventy Six Thousand
Two Hundred and Seven) KL of ethanol allotted to us
for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25 (after price reduction),
we were unable to supply 1,56,292 (One Lakh Fifty Six
Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two) KL within
the stipulated period, despite having taken every possible
step and made earnest efforts to effect the said supply in
time. which in fact is a minute fraction of the total
allocated quantities.
18. We respectfully submit that the aforesaid shortfall has
occurred for bonafide and unavoidable reasons beyond
our control, arising primarily out of policy decisions of the
Government of India which took us by surprises and
uncertainty. We have at all times acted with utmost
diligence and transparency and at no stage has there
been any lapse, delay, or omission on our part in
performing our obligations under the terms of the tender.
19. In fact, it is pertinent to mention here that we were able
to commission a unit of our Plant for multi-feed
operations within a record period of about eight months,
whereas the entire process ordinarily takes not less than
twelve to fourteen months. This was achieved despite the
fact that the IPO, which was originally scheduled to open
in December 2024, had to be deferred to October 2025
owing to adverse market conditions further demonstrating
our commitment and resolve to restore full scale
production at the earliest.
34
20. The aforesaid shortfall quantity of ethanol amounting to
1,56,292 (One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred and
Ninety Two) KL, allocated to us under the Tender
Reference Nos. 1000423858 (C-1)/17893 dated
26.09.2024, C-2/18307 dated 06.12.2024, C-3/18795
dated 29.01.2025, and C-5/21346 dated 01.07.2025
pursuant to which the LOAs dated 02.05.2025 and
25.07.2005 for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25
respectively were issued by BPCL., HPCL and IOCL is now
ready to be produced and supplied. Our plants are fully
operational, raw materials have been duly procured from
local farmers by spending several crores of rupees and we
are in complete readiness to manufacture and supply the
aforesaid shortfall quantity within a period of 90 (Ninety)
days from the date of this communication
We, therefore, request you to read and consider
the aforenarrated facts and circumstances and further,
take such steps as may be necessary to permit us to
supply the shortfall quantity of 1,56,292 (One Lakh
Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two)
KL of ethanol within a period of 90 (Ninety) days from
the date of this communication, in terms of the
allocations made under Tender Reference Nos.
1000423858 (C-1)/17893 dated 26.09.2024, C-2/18307
dated 06.12.2024, C-3/18795 dated 29.01.2025, and C-
5/21346 dated 01.07.2025, pursuant to which Letters of
Award (LOAs) dated 02.05.2025 and 25.07.2025 were
issued by BPCL, HPCL, and IOCL for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY
2024-25, respectively.
We remain optimistic that your good offices would
certainly consider the request made in this
communication favorably, for which acts of indulgence on
your part, we shall remain ever grateful.
Thanking you
Your faithfully
Sd/-
35
For M/s TruAlt Bioenergy Limited
Having its registered Office at,
Sy. No. 166, Kulali Cross
Jamkhandi Mudhol Road
Bagalkot - 587313"
.... .... ....
"To 23 October, 2025
Mr. Sidhartha Mitra
Executive Director and CGM-Biofuels
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Indian Oil Bhavan, Bandra East
Mumbai 400051 (Maharashtra)
By Registered Post Acknowledgement Due
&
Email Communication
Dear Sir,
Subject: Request for extension of time for supply of
the shortfall quantity of ethanol allotted for
Q3 and Q4 of the Ethanol Supply Year 2024-
25 for a period of 90 days from the date of
this communication
1. We are one of India's largest biofuel producers,
strategically positioned as a leading and diversified entity
in the Indian biofuels sector, with a primary focus on the
production and supply of ethanol.
2. For and in connection with the supply of Denatured
Anhydrous Ethanol to the Oil Marketing Companies
(OMCs), bids were invited for all four quarters of the
Ethanol Supply Year (ESY) 2024-25 under Tender
Reference Nos. 1000423858 (С-1)/17893 dated
26.09.2024, C-2/18307 dated 06.12.2024, C-3/18795
dated 29.01.2025, and C-5/21346 dated 01.07.2025.
36
3. We submitted our bids pursuant to the aforesaid tenders
and emerged successful therein. Accordingly, Letters of
Award (LOAs) dated 02.05.2025 for Q3, and
subsequently, LOA dated 25.07.2025 were issued in our
favour for the period Q4 of the ESY 2024-25 by Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), and Indian Oil
Corporation Limited (IOCL)
4. In terms of the allocation made under the said tender
process, a total quantity of 1,85,481 (One Lakh Eighty
Five Thousand Four Hundred Eighty One) KL was duly
allotted to us for being supplied to the OMCs for the third
and fourth Quarters of the ESY 2024-25.
5. However, owing to circumstances wholly beyond our
control, we were unable to supply the allotted quantity of
ethanol in full for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25.
6. The reasons for such short supply are twofold. Firstly, the
Notification bearing No.F.No.3(2)/2023-SP dated
07.12.2023, issued by the Director of Sugar, Department
of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India,
prohibited all distilleries, including our entity, from the
use of sugarcane juice or sugar syrup for the manufacture
of ethanol for ESY 2023-24, with immediate effect.
7. The said Notification was issued abruptly and without any
prior notice, leaving no time for us to adapt or make
alternate arrangements, thereby causing an
unforeseeable disruption in production of ethanol.
8. We laid a challenge to the said Notification in Writ Petition
No. 107956 of 2023, which petition was disposed of on
25.04.2024, wherein the Hon'ble Court of Karnataka at
Dharwad was pleased to direct the OMCs to purchase the
ethanol that had already been produced by us. However,
the ban on the use of sugarcane juice and sugar syrup for
the manufacture of ethanol was lifted only in the
subsequent ESY of 2024-25.
9. However, pursuant to the aforesaid Notification, we being
a standalone ethanol manufacturing unit entirely
37
dependent on sugarcane as the primary feedstock for
ethanol production, were severely affected, resulting in a
complete disruption of our operations.
10. Secondly, in light of the said ban, we took steps for the
establishment of a multi-feed manufacturing unit to
enable production of ethanol from alternative feedstocks.
For this purpose, we were constrained to avail substantial
loans and also raise capital from the public through an
Initial Public Offering (IPO), a process that was both time
consuming and financially demanding.
11. For the initial establishment of the five units our Plant, we
have incurred a total capex of Rs.1853 Crores (Rupees
One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Three Crores)
which includes loans from various financial institutions
including Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency
Limited (IREDA), State Bank of India, Kotak Mahindra
Bank, Canara Bank and the Indian Overseas Bank.
12. Subsequently, for the purpose of converting two Units of
our Plant to multi-feed operations, we have incurred a
capex cost of Rs.296 crores (Two Hundred and Ninety Six
Crores). Further, for the conversion of another Unit of our
Plant to multi-feed capability, we were constrained to
raise an additional amount of Rs. 172 Crores (Rupees One
Hundred and Seventy Two Crores) by way of an IPO in
public markets. Such immediate financial measures were
necessitated solely on account of the Notification issued
by the Government of India referred to supra, which left
no alternative but to restructure and adapt our operations
to ensure continuity of production.
13. Therefore, for the purpose of establishing our entire
ethanol manufacturing infrastructure and to effectively
contribute to the Government of India's Ethanol Blending
Programme, we have incurred a total capex cost of
Rs.2,321 Crores (Rupees Two Thousand Three Hundred
and Twenty One Crores).
14. Notwithstanding the severe financial hardship caused by
the disruption in production, we have been diligently
honouring all our repayment obligations and have
38
continued to pay every loan instalment along with interest
on time and without a single default, upholding our
credibility with the lending institutions.
15. The entire process of financing and establishing the multi-
feed manufacturing unit, however, consumed
considerable time and resources and the same was
necessitated solely on account of the ill effects posed by
the Notification referred to supra. But for the said
restriction imposed by the Notification supra, we would
have continued manufacturing ethanol from sugarcane in
the ordinary and uninterrupted course of our operations
and there certainly would have been no disruption
whatsoever in the supply of ethanol by us.
16. Further, during the Financial Year 2024-25, we have
disbursed employee salaries amounting to Rs.39.85
Crores (Rupees Thirty Nine Crores and Eighty Five Lakhs
only) and have incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,042.68
Crores (Rupees One Thousand Forty Two Crores and Sixty
Eight Lakhs only) towards procurement of raw materials
for the said year.
17. Owing to the bonafide reasons detailed hereinabove, out
of the 1,76,207 (One Lakh Seventy Six Thousand
Two Hundred and Seven) KL of ethanol allotted to us
for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25 (after price reduction),
we were unable to supply 1,56,292 (One Lakh Fifty Six
Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two) KL within
the stipulated period, despite having taken every possible
step and made earnest efforts to effect the said supply in
time. which in fact is a minute fraction of the total
allocated quantities.
18. We respectfully submit that the aforesaid shortfall has
occurred for bonafide and unavoidable reasons beyond
our control, arising primarily out of policy decisions of the
Government of India which took us by surprises and
uncertainty. We have at all times acted with utmost
diligence and transparency and at no stage has there
been any lapse, delay, or omission on our part in
performing our obligations under the terms of the tender.
39
19. In fact, it is pertinent to mention here that we were able
to commission a unit of our Plant for multi-feed
operations within a record period of about eight months,
whereas the entire process ordinarily takes not less than
twelve to fourteen months. This was achieved despite the
fact that the IPO, which was originally scheduled to open
in December 2024, had to be deferred to October 2025
owing to adverse market conditions further demonstrating
our commitment and resolve to restore full scale
production at the earliest.
20. The aforesaid shortfall quantity of ethanol amounting to
1,56,292 (One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred and
Ninety Two) KL, allocated to us under the Tender
Reference Nos. 1000423858 (C-1)/17893 dated
26.09.2024, C-2/18307 dated 06.12.2024, C-3/18795
dated 29.01.2025, and C-5/21346 dated 01.07.2025
pursuant to which the LOAs dated 02.05.2025 and
25.07.2005 for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY 2024-25
respectively were issued by BPCL., HPCL and IOCL is now
ready to be produced and supplied. Our plants are fully
operational, raw materials have been duly procured from
local farmers by spending several crores of rupees, and
we are in complete readiness to manufacture and supply
the aforesaid shortfall quantity within a period of 90
(Ninety) days from the date of this communication
We, therefore, request you to read and consider
the aforenarrated facts and circumstances and further,
take such steps as may be necessary to permit us to
supply the shortfall quantity of 1,56,292 (One Lakh
Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two)
KL of ethanol within a period of 90 (Ninety) days from
the date of this communication, in terms of the
allocations made under Tender Reference Nos.
1000423858 (C-1)/17893 dated 26.09.2024, C-2/18307
dated 06.12.20024, C-3/18795 dated 29.01.2025, and C-
5/21346 dated 01.07.2025, pursuant to which Letters of
Award (LOAs) dated 02.05.2025 and 25.07.2025 were
issued by BPCL, HPCL, and IOCL for Q3 and Q4 of the ESY
2024-25, respectively.
40
We remain optimistic that your good offices would
certainly consider the request made in this
communication favorably, for which acts of indulgence on
your part, we shall remain ever grateful.
Thanking you
Your faithfully
Sd/-
For M/s TruAlt Bioenergy Limited
Having its registered Office at,
Sy. No. 166, Kulali Cross
Jamkhandi Mudhol Road
Bagalkot - 587313"
In the aforementioned representations, the petitioner seeks time of
90 days for fulfilling the shortfall of earlier tender by explaining the
circumstances. Those representations having gone unheeded is
what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
10. The issue now would be, whether the petitioner would
be entitled to a direction at the hands of this Court?
11. It is not in dispute that the afore-quoted ban was imposed
by Government of India. Hitherto, the petitioner was procuring
41
sugarcane juice and sugar syrup for manufacture of ethanol. It
suddenly stopped as ban was imposed. Since the petitioner was a
standalone ethanol manufacturing unit, it had to make alternate
arrangement for production of ethanol. The alternate arrangements
are pleaded in the petition in extenso. The ban is again lifted after a
year. Litigation against the ban was pending. By then, the petitioner
had established different sources of manufacture of ethanol. Again,
tender notifications are issued after lifting the ban. The petitioner
emerges successful. In the 3rd notification also, the petitioner
emerged successful. Now what remains is shortfall supply which is
already manufactured and kept, which the respondents are not
adhering to receive, on the score that there is default on the part of
the petitioner and, therefore, they are not obliged to receive the
said ethanol, as it would result in surplus.
12. Ethanol supply for the current year is at 1050 crore liters.
The shortfall can always be filled by what is manufactured and kept.
Though this Court cannot sit and tinker with the conditions of
tender, and the situation created by the ban for the petitioner as
pleaded in the representations and the memorandum of writ
42
petition, as a one of situation to a one of problem, I deem it
appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the representation
dated 23-10-2025 of the petitioner, for the purpose for which it is
submitted - seeking extension of time by a period of 90 days for
supply of shortfall quantity of 1,56,292 KL of ethanol, which was
duly allotted to the petitioner for the ethanol supply year 2024-25.
The representation shall merit consideration within 10 days from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
a. The writ petition stands allowed.
b. Mandamus issues to the respondents to consider the
representation dated 23.10.2025 for the purpose for which
it is rendered seeking extension of time by a period of 90
days for supply of shortfall quantity of 1,56,292 KL of
ethanol for the year 2024-25.
c. The representation shall merit consideration within 10 days
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2025 stands disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:SS
