[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
M/S. Gatih Logistics vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 11 March, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2026
In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950
***
M/s. Gatih Logistics
Represented through proprietor
Smt. Jashaswini Patra
Aged about 38 years
Wife of Umasankar Senapati
Having Office At: Plot No.385/1824
Bidanasi, near Modern Public School
Cuttack, Odisha - 753 014. ... Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
(H.P.C.), represented through
Chairman
Having its Registered Office
At: 17, Jamshedji Tata Road
Mumbai - 400 020.
2. The Deputy General Manager -Installation
Constituted Attorney, H.P.C.L.
Paradeep Terminal, Bhitargarh
P.O.: Atharabanki, Railway Colony
Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur
Odisha - 754 120.
3. Assistant Manager Operation, H.P.C.L.
NBCC Imperia, Press Chowk, Gajapati Nagar
12th Floor, Commercial Complex, Tower-1
Bhubaneswar.
4. Chief General Manager, H.P.C.L.
NBCC Imperia, Press chowk, Gajapati Nagar
12th Floor, Commercial Complex, Tower-1
Bhubaneswar. ... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath,
Senior Advocate
Assisted by
M/s. Saibrata Rath,
Adhiraj Behera,
Surajit Kumar Behera,
Shradha Das, Gayatri Lenka,
Shidhant Chandan,
Ankit Mohanty,
Indira Priyadarsani Bose,
Swagat Mohapatra,
Adarsh Biswal, Advocates.
For the Opposite Party : M/s. Srinivas Patnaik,
Nos.1 to 4 Tara Prakash Paul,
Nrusingha C. Rout
Advocates.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. HARISH TANDON
AND
HONOURABLE JUSTICE
MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Date of Hearing : 23.02.2026 :: Date of Order : 11.03.2026
O RDER
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.--
Assailed in the instant writ petition is the Letter dated
08.01.2026 of the Deputy General Manager-Installation,
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. cancelling the
Letter of Acceptance dated 01.08.2025 issued for
transportation of "Bulk POL products" in response to the
tender and forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit. The
petitioner beseeches to invoke power of judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of
following reliefs:
"The petitioner, therefore, pray that your Lordships would
be graciously pleased to admit this Writ Petition, call for
the records and after hearing the parties allow the same,
issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus
and/or any other further writ/direction and quash the
impugned Letter dated 08.01.2026 issued by the
Opposite party No.2/Deputy General Manager-Installation
under Annexure-1 and selection of the petitioner be held
valid in respect of five numbers of TTs;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty
bound ever pray."
Facts:
2. The factual details as unfurled by the petitioner for the
present purpose reveals that in response to two-bid
tender process comprising techno commercial bid and
priced bid the proprietorship concern participated along
with others by offering seven Tank Trucks (be referred to
as "TTs" for convenience) of 12KL to 18KL capacity and
eleven TTs of 18KL to 25 KL capacity under the Women
MSE category. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited ("HPCL" for short) issued Provisional Letter of
Acceptance dated 25.07.2025 (for short, "LoA")
instructing the petitioner to produce original documents
relating to five TTs of >=12KL and <18KL capacity
bearing Registration Nos. OD29N9165, OD29N8653,
OD29N8239, OD29J2140 and OD29J2182. Along with
Bid a Declaration regarding Contract with Other Oil
Marketing Companies (to be provided by the Bidder) in
Attachment-11 (Annexure-7 enclosed with writ petition)
as required under the terms of the Tender was
furnished. It was intimated thereunder that out of seven
tank trucks offered, two TTs bearing OD29J2140 and
OD29J2182 of 14KL capacity were engaged with Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd. ("IOCL", for convenience).
2.1. As required under Clause 6 of the General Terms and
Conditions of the Tender paper requires "No Objection
Certificate" ("NOC", for brevity) from other Oil Marketing
Company is to be furnished to HPCL, it (petitioner) on
01.08.2025 made application to the IOCL for grant of
necessary NOC, which was accorded on the very date.
On 31.08.2025 a communication via e-mail was made to
the HPCL for extension of time for reporting of TT.
Notwithstanding grant of NOC, as the IOCL did not
release the vehicles, writ petition being W.P.(C) No.25005
of 2025 [OMM Shree Transport Vrs. Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd.]1 was filed. This Court by Judgment dated
1 Smt. Jashaswini Patra, the proprietress of Gatih Logistics, the petitioner, being
a partner of OMM Shree Transport filed the writ petition.
28.11.2025 set aside the letter dated 02.09.2025 of the
IOCL cancelling the NOC.
2.2. Despite such position, the HPCL issued show cause
notice dated 04.09.2025 vide Annexure-11 which being
challenged in W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2025, this Court by
Order dated 15.12.2025 directed the petitioner to submit
reply to said show cause notice. Pursuant thereto reply
to the show cause notice dated 04.09.2025 was
submitted on 17.12.2025 and 20.12.2025. The HPCL
without considering such reply(ies) and predicament of
the petitioner rejected the grievance.
2.3. It was impossible for the petitioner to produce the TTs
bearing OD29J2140 and OD29J2182, as the same were
not released by IOCL. It is only after the Judgment dated
28.11.2025 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 25005 of
2025, IOCL expressed its willingness to release and
replace the said TTs vide e-mail dated 26.12.2025
(Annexure-15).
2.4. Nonetheless, the HPCL referring to Clause 6 and Clause
19 of the General Terms and Conditions of Tender,
issued letter of regret on 08.01.2026 expressing
cancellation of LoA and forfeiture of Earnest Money
Deposit.
2.5. Perceiving the impugned Letter dated 08.01.2026
(Annexure-1) issued by the HPCL being wholly arbitrary
and passed in colourable exercise of power, without any
material or for cogent reasons, in absence of support of
any factual foundation and has been actuated with mala
fide to oust the petitioner, on 09.01.2026 and
11.01.2026 letters were communicated to the HPCL for
reconsideration of cancellation of LoA. A communication
vide Letter dated 12.01.2026 was made by the HPCL.
Expressing that no ground to interfere with the decision
already taken being found, the HPCL made
communication vide Letter dated 08.01.2026.
2.6. Being aggrieved, a further communication dated
12.01.2026 was made to HPCL and thereafter, the
petitioner filed this writ petition on 13.01.2026.
Hearing:
3. A counter affidavit dated 19.02.2026 has come to be
filed by the opposite parties on 20.02.2026, copy of
which had already been served on the counsel for the
petitioner.
3.1. As the pleadings are completed, and the writ petition
relates to LoA of TT for supply of commodities of HPCL,
on the consent of counsel for the both the parties, the
matter was taken up for final hearing on 23.02.2026.
3.2. Hearing being concluded on the said date, the matter
was directed to be listed on 11.03.2026 "for Orders".
Today the matter being listed, this order has been
passed.
Rival contentions:
4. Sri Prafulla Kumar Rath, learned Senior Advocate
submitted that:
a. The HPCL allowed the petitioner to participate in
the Bidding process on consideration of the
available documents enclosed with the Bid
including "Declaration regarding contract with
other OMC's (to be provided by the bidder)" vide
Attachment-11 (See Annexure-7 to the writ
petition), wherein TTs bearing Nos.OD19J2140 and
OD19J2182 along with five others were disclosed.
b. Though the NOC in respect of these two vehicles
were issued by the IOCL, on its revocation, this
Court vide Judgment dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure-
11) set aside such cancellation of NOC. The IOCL
though on 06.01.2026 approved replacement of
said vehicles for utilising them in any other
purpose, practically released these two vehicles by
issue of Work Order dated 24.01.2026 de-linking
these vehicles.
c. It is made clear from NOC dated 01.08.2025 that in
the event the petitioner comes out successful, the
IOCL would release the said vehicles in
replacement thereof.
On the above backdrop, it is argued that it is fallacious
on the part of the HPCL to construe that such NOC is a
conditional one and not in consonance with requirement
of Clause 6. It is also vehemently opposed that merely
because there was failure to place TTs within the period
stipulated under Clause 19 of the General Terms and
Conditions of the LoA/Tender, the LoA could not have
been cancelled and Earnest Money Deposit should not
have been forfeited. Such non-placement of TTs were
supported by plausible reason.
4.1. It is arduously argued that the HPCL misdirected itself
and misread the NOC dated 01.08.2025 issued by the
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., which unambiguously
reveals that it is "unconditional" one.
4.2. It is further submitted that though counter affidavit has
been sworn to on 19.02.2026 by responsible officer of
the HPCL, namely DGM-Installation and constituted
attorney, the same does not disclose that on 12.01.2026
LoA was issued in favour of Future Logistics. Therefore,
material suppression of fact would not protect such an
illegal action of HPCL. Inference of mala fide in awarding
the work to its favoured person is apparent.
4.3. He emphatically submitted that the NOC issued in
favour of the petitioner cannot be said to be "conditional"
and the HPCL having ignored to take into account
communication made by the IOCL through mail dated
26.12.2025 for replacement of TTs in view of Judgement
dated 28.11.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.25005 of 2025, it
acted whimsically by rejecting the reply to show cause
notice submitted by the petitioner.
5. Quoad ultra, Sri Srinvas Patnaik, learned Advocate
appearing for and on behalf of HPCL (opposite parties)
forcefully submitted that the NOC issued by the IOCL is
not unconditional one as required under Clause 6 of the
General Terms and Conditions of Tender. Stemming his
argument on documents at Annexure-A/2 enclosed with
the counter affidavit it is submitted that on a
correspondence with IOCL vide e-mail dated 29.08.2025
with respect to status of subject-TTs, it has come to be
informed via e-mail dated 01.09.2025 by IOCL that
"These TTs are still running in our contract and have not
been released. You are requested to confirm the date of
Bid submission of these TTs". It is, hence, submitted that
since on the date of induction, the vehicles were not
available, there was non-adherence to terms laid in
Clause 6 of the General Terms and Conditions.
5.1. This apart, as per Clause 19 of the General Terms and
Conditions, the petitioner was required to physically
place TT at the location within 30 days from the issue of
Letter of Acceptance/Work Order. Since such
condition(s) could not be complied with by the petitioner,
the LoA has rightfully been cancelled and for justified
reason the Earnest Money Deposit is forfeited.
Analysis and consideration of rival contentions:
6. With respect to two TTs bearing Registration
Nos.OD29J2140 and OD29J2182 of 14KL capacity each,
the IOCL issued NOC, relevant portion of which reads as
follows:
"These trucks are current running under contract with
IOCL at Paradip Terminal. You have mentioned in your
letter that in the event of you being successful in tender,
you will give replacement of another higher model TT
immediately.
In this regard, it is informed that IOC has no
objection in participation of these TTs in other
tenders."
Bare reading of said NOC does not depict that such NOC
is hedged with condition, but for only in the event of
success in any other tender, these vehicles would be
released.
6.1. The petitioner was issued with Provisional LoA on
25.07.2025 inter alia with following instructions:
"***
4. Please note that as per „General Terms and
Conditions-- Execution of Agreement‟, placement of
TTs less than number mentioned in LoA/Work Order
shall not be permitted.
5. You are required to complete the above formalities
within 15 days (90 days in case of booking slip) of
the date of this LoA and place the tank trucks for
induction immediately thereafter.
6. The contract will be valid for a period of 5 years from
the date of commencement of contract not later than
01.09.2025.
***"
6.2. The vehicles were not released even though NOC was
issued on 01.08.2025; nonetheless, the NOC was
cancelled by IOCL on 02.09.2025, which led the
petitioner to approach this Court in W.P.(C) No.25005 of
2025. Said writ petition came to be disposed of vide
Judgment dated 28.11.2025 with the following
observations:
"6. On the conspectus of the aforesaid facts and
submissions so advanced, the seminal point
involved in the instant writ petition is whether the
action of the authorities in cancelling the no objection
certificate upon taking shelter under Clause 8.2.2.14
of the Guidelines is justified.
***
6.5. We are conscious of the somewhat settled
proposition of law that the Courts should be slow
and circumspect in interfering with the decision of
the authority within the four corners of the terms
and conditions embodied in the contract, but if the
parties have misinterpreted any of the clauses,
which do not invite any ambiguity in interpreting the
same, the Court may interfere and quash the
decision taken in violation thereof. The decision of
the contracting authorities is tested not only on the
intention to be gathered from the expressed words
used in the contract, but also on the reasonability
and, therefore, such decision must withstand on the
test of reasonability. Though the conditions
incorporated in the contract are to disclose the
registration number of the TTs at the time of
participation in the tender process with full
disclosure of its capacity, but the moment the
transporter offers the TTs of higher capacity and
intended to replace the same with the recent model,
we do not find any justification in the stand of the
Corporation in taking shelter under the said Clause.
What can be reasonably gathered from the
mandate of disclosing the registration number
of the TTs and the capacity to carry the goods
is to ensure the uninterrupted and continuous
transportation of the goods and if the old TTs
are replaced by new model of higher capacity,
there is no justification in denying such
permission. An impression is created in us that
the Corporation does not intend the
transporter to transport the goods of another
company dealing in the said goods and such
restriction cannot be said to be reasonable.
7. We, thus, set aside the letter cancelling the no
objection certificate issued earlier and accordingly,
all the consequential steps taken thereupon are also
quashed and set aside."
6.3. After aforesaid judgment being passed by this Court
setting aside the letter cancelling the NOC, the IOCL
consumed time in releasing the vehicles and it could be
ascertained that IOCL released the subject-vehicles vide
Work Order dated 24.01.2026. It is obvious that due to
such reason and such arbitrary approach of the IOCL,
the petitioner could not comply with the terms of Clause
62 and Clause 193 of the General Terms and Conditions
of the Tender.
6.4. Reading of NOC dated 01.08.2025 issued by the IOCL
without any ambiguity reveals that it is not a conditional
one. The sentence "In this regard, it is informed that IOC
has no objection in participation of these TTs in other
2 Relevant portion of Clause 6 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Tender
stands thus:
"For Tank Trucks under operation with any other Oil Company, an unconditional
No Objection Certificate is to be obtained from the concerned Oil Company for
placing the same fully in the service of HPC against this tender. NOC to be
submitted at the time of induction of Tank Truck."
3 Relevant portion of Clause 19 of the General Terms and Conditions of the
Tender stands thus:
"(a) Successful tenderer/s will be required, before undertaking the contract to
execute the Agreement within 15 days of the date of issue of the Work
Order and should physically place the Tank Truck at the location within
30 days from the issue of LoA/Work Order. HPCL may allow additional
time of up to 15 days for execution of Agreement. In case of failure, HPCL
reserves the right to cancel the LoA. Date of HPCL e-mail sent along with
the LoA copy bidders will be considered as the issue date of LoA.
(d) Tank trucks placed for induction shall meet with all the terms and
conditions stipulated in the tender document. Any modification required to
be carried for complying with the tender conditions shall he carried out
prior to placing the tank trucks.
(e) Tank trucks completed in all respects shall he placed for induction. Not
fulfilling any of the tender conditions shall be deemed as non-compliance
of tender requirements and appropriate action as per terms of the tender
shall be taken."
tenders" reflected in said NOC makes it abundantly clear
that it is not hedged with any condition. It is also
relevant to take note of e-mail dated 31.08.2025 placed
before Deputy General Manager (Installation), HPCL,
whereby the petitioner sought for extension of time for
making TTs available as the IOCL had not released the
vehicles by then, which compelled the petitioner to
approach this Court by way of a writ petition as noted
above.
6.5. The case of the petitioner is fortified by having a glance
at Provisional LoA dated 25.07.2025, which instructs to
complete formalities within 15 days of the date of said
LoA. In fact, within fifteen days an unconditional NOC
was obtained from IOCL, though the same subsequently
stood cancelled unilaterally. However, by virtue of
Judgment dated 28.11.2025 in W.P.(C) No.25005 of
2025 of this Court, the position is restored to the stage
that was obtained as on 01.08.2025.
6.6. In this regard rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India may be relevant to buttress that when an order is
set aside, the position goes back to the stage from where
default occurred. Regard may be had to Shri Anant R.
Kulkarni Vrs. Y.P. Education Society, (2013) 6 SCR 1124
wherein it has been stated thus:
"It is a settled legal proposition that, once the Court sets
aside an order of punishment on the ground, that the
enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court should not
severely preclude the employer from holding the inquiry in
accordance with law. It must remit the concerned case to
the disciplinary authority, to conduct the enquiry from the
point that it stood vitiated, and to conclude the same in
accordance with law. However, resorting to such a course
depends upon the gravity of delinquency involved. Thus,
the court must examine the magnitude of misconduct
alleged against the delinquent employee. It is in view of
this, that courts/tribunals, are not competent to quash the
charge-sheet and related disciplinary proceedings, before
the same are concluded, on the aforementioned grounds.
(Vide: Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc. etc. Vrs.
B. Karunakar etc. etc., AIR 1994 SC 1074; Hiran Mayee
Bhattacharyya Vrs. Secretary, S.M. School for Girls,
(2002) 10 SCC 293; U.P. State Spinning C. Ltd. Vrs. R.S.
Pandey, (2005) 8 SCC 264; and Union of India Vrs. Y.S.
Sandhu, Ex-Inspector, AIR 2009 SC 161)."
In Anantdeep Singh Vrs. The High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh, (2024) 9 SCR 135 it has been
stated thus:
"Once the termination order is set aside and
judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ
petition challenging the said termination order has
also been set aside, the natural consequence is that
the employee should be taken back in service and
thereafter proceeded with as per the directions.
Once the termination order is set aside then the
employee is deemed to be in service. We find no
justification in the inaction of the High Court and also the
State in not taking back the appellant into service after
the order dated 20.04.2022. No decision was taken either
by the High Court or by the State of taking back the
appellant into service and no decision was made
regarding the back wages from the date the termination
order had been passed till the date of reinstatement
which should be the date of the judgment of this Court. In
any case, the appellant was entitled to salary from the
date of judgment dated 20.04.2022 till fresh termination
order was passed on 02.04.2024. The appellant would
thus be entitled to full salary for the above period to be
calculated with all benefits admissible treating the
appellant to be in continuous service."
6.7. Being abreast of such ratio, it is, hence, held that as the
cancellation of NOC issued by the IOCL has been set
aside, the NOC is stated to be valid on and from
01.08.2025. Therefore, it can be concluded in the
aforesaid conspectus of facts borne on record that the
perception of the HPCL is flawed inasmuch as the
petitioner has not deviated from conditions stipulated in
Clause 6 of the General Terms and Conditions attached
to the Tender.
6.8. Since the NOC is treated to have been obtained within
the period stipulated, the other reason for cancellation of
Provisional LoA dated 25.07.2025 by relying on Clause
19 of the General Terms and Conditions cannot subsist.
7. To consider the contention of the learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the reason
ascribed for taking penal action like cancellation of LoA
and forfeiting Earnest Money Deposit, it may be apposite
to take into consideration the following approach made
by the HPCL in its impugned Letter dated 08.01.2026:
"***
Notwithstanding the fact that all Oil Marketing Companies
(OMCs) are Public Sector Undertakings, each CMC
operates strictly in accordance with its own approved
Tender Terms and Conditions. No OMC has the authority
to compel or direct another OMC to release Tank Trucks
under an existing contract.
The onus to obtain an unconditional No Objection
Certificate (NOC) from the concerned OMC squarely rests
with the bidder, which requirement was expressly
stipulated in the Tender Terms and Conditions and duly
acknowledged and accepted by you at the time of
submission of the bid.
You had offered the aforesaid two (02) Tank Trucks with
full knowledge and clear understanding, that an
unconditional NOC was required to be submitted within
the stipulated time prior to induction. However, you have
failed to comply with this mandatory requirement,
rendering the offered Tank Trucks ineligible for induction
under the subject tender.
***
The Show Cause Notice issued to you continues to hold
valid factual and legal grounds, as the conditional No
Objection Certificate submitted by you was duly verified
with the competent authority of IOCL through official e-
mail correspondence. IOCL categorically confirmed that TT
Nos. OD-29J-2140 and OD-29J-2182 were operating
under their active contract at the relevant time.
***
The timelines provided in the Tender terms and conditions
are sacrosanct, given the sensitive nature of the business
of the Corporation, being involved in the delivery of
essential commodities. It is further noted that all LOA
holders were provided a uniform time period to complete
tender formalities. As already communicated vide SCN
dated 04.09.2025, IOCL had categorically confirmed that
Tank Trucks OD-29J-2140 and OD-29J-2182 were under
their active contract Even as on date, these Tank Trucks
continue to operate under IOCL‟s contract. Your own email
dated 29.12.2025 containing IOC mail dated 26.12.2025
confirms that release of the said Tank Trucks from IOCL
would occur only upon induction of replacement Tank
Trucks, which is contrary to the requirement of submitting
an unconditional NOC prior to induction, as stipulated
under Clause 6 of the Tender. Any non-uniform treatment,
including providing extended time for the submission of
the Documents or compliance with the Tender terms and
conditions, would amount to providing preferential
treatment to one Bidder over the other. In other words,
acceptance of your conditional NOC/unconditional NOC
issued in future as Informed by you or providing you with
additional timeline beyond the Tender terms and
conditions for the induction of TTs would amount to
favourable treatment to you over other Bidders, leading
unfavourable competitive conditions against other
Bidders.
***
Accordingly, in line with Clause 19(a) and Clause 6 of
Tender No. 2400016376-HD-09050, we regret to inform
you that the LOA issued to you stands cancelled with
immediate effect. Further, your EMD shall be forfeited as
per tender conditions."
7.1. The conclusion so arrived at based on Clause 6 and
Clause 19 afore-mentioned does not appear to be
reasonable or prudent. The genesis of action against the
petitioner, as admitted by HPCL in its Letter dated
08.01.2026 vide Annexure-1, reveals that:
"At the time of bid submission as per Attachment-11 of
the Tender Document, you had declared that 7 out of 18
TTs offered by you were already in operation and
currently plying with other OMC. Out of 7 TT, 2 TTs (TT
No. OD29J2140 and OD29J2182) have been selected in
LoA and you had submitted a conditional NOC from IOC
vide NOC Ref: OSO/OPS/PDP/RC/TPT/NOC from Indian
Oil, dated 01.08.2025, The abovementioned NOC is
conditional in nature with the condition attached--„these
trucks are current running under contract with IOC at
Paradip Terminal. You have mentioned in your letter that
in the event of you being successful in tender, you will
give replacement of another higher model TT
immediately."
7.2. With full knowledge that the subject-TTs were engaged
with other Oil Marketing Company, as indicated in the
declaration vide Attachment-11 to the Bid document, the
HPCL allowed the petitioner to participate in the process
of tender. Being conscious of such fact, the HPCL
opened not only the techno-commercial Bid, but also
financial Bid and found the petitioner successful. It is
only after such exercise, the HPCL came forward to
dissuade the successful Bidder from executing the work
on specious plea that the NOC is unconditional. It is not
in dispute that the NOC issued by the IOCL was before
the HPCL and the HPCL conducted verification with
respect to its status. The IOCL replied on 01.09.2025
indicating the subject-TTs were not released. The events
would go to show that the cancellation of NOC being set
aside by this Court, the NOC originally issued by the
IOCL remained valid. Such NOC being unconditional
one, the petitioner could not have been expected to
perform the impossible and what was not within its
control.
7.3. Though the NOC was issued on 01.08.2025 by the IOCL,
the same was cancelled, which gave rise to non-
compliance of tender conditions despite a
communication via e-mail on 31.08.2025 was made to
the HPCL for extension of time for reporting of TT.
However, such cancellation was interdicted by this Court
in W.P.(C) No.25005 of 2025 vide Judgment dated
28.11.2025. It is apt at this stage to say that the law
does not expect the performance of the impossible.4
7.4. It is needed to be considered that the HPCL issued Show
Cause Notice dated 04.09.2025 contemplating penal
action of cancelling LoA and forfeiture of Earnest Money
4 See Nirmal Chandra Rout Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.18144 of 2022, vide
Judgment dated 04.02.2026 for discussions on the principle "nemo tenetur ad
impossibilia"/"lex non cogit ad impossibilia".
Deposit on the premise that the petitioner failed to
furnish "unconditional NOC for the aforementioned two
TTs within the timeline provided in the LoA and the
Tender document. Assailing such notice having
approached in a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.25153 of
2025, this Court passed Order dated 15.12.2025
granting the petitioner liberty to file reply with the
following observations:
"3. Since the said TTs were attached to the said
company, an application was made by the petitioner
to release the same with the stipulation that the
petitioner intended to participate in another tender
floated by the present opposite parties. The said
NOC was initially issued but there appears to be
dissent in this regard and the said NOC was
subsequently cancelled. Since the petitioner did not
put in place the aforesaid TTs as disclosed in the bid
documents nor submitted a valid NOC as the same
was subsequently cancelled, the said show-cause
notice was issued, which is impugned in the instant
writ petition.
***
5. The Court should not venture to strike down the
show-cause notice even if the explanation and/or
the facts warrant so, the Court should relegate the
parties to the authorities disclosing all such facts for
taking a decision on the basis of such disclosure of
facts to be satisfactory and/or plausible.
6. In the instant case, the petitioner attempted to bring
the subsequent event arisen in a judicial parlance as
the decision of the other company in cancelling the
NOC was quashed and set aside and, therefore, it is
sought to be contended that there is no basis for the
show-cause notice issued by the opposite parties. It
is essentially a question of fact if disclosed to be
decided by the authority competent in this regard.
Solely on such basis, the Court should not interfere
with the show-cause notice as the subjective
satisfaction of the authorities is important and
paramount in this regard.
7. Considering the peculiarity of the facts, we permit
the petitioner to file a reply to the said show-cause
notice impugned in the instant writ petition by
extending the time by one week from date. In the
event, such reply to the said show-cause notice is
filed within the time indicated hereinabove, the
opposite parties or the competent authorities shall
take a pragmatic view and will take a decision
within a reasonable period of time which should not
exceed beyond one month from the date of filing of
the reply."
7.5. Accordingly replies dated 17.12.2025 and 20.12.2025
were filed and a representation dated 09.01.2026 was
also made to the authority concerned clearly stating that
the IOCL is required to act in consonance with the
Judgment dated 28.11.2025 setting aside the
cancellation of NOC. Since IOCL is to comply with such
Judgment of this Court and release the two TTs
mentioned above in relation to NOC dated 01.08.2025 so
that the petitioner would be enabled to engage these TTs
with the HPCL, it was also impressed upon by the
petitioner that non-release of the two TTs by IOCL was
beyond control and by dint of judicial order of this Court
the IOCL was to take steps. However, in fact on
24.01.2026 the IOCL released the TTs in terms of
unconditional NOC dated 01.08.2025.
7.6. It has already been held in the foregoing paragraphs that
the NOC of the IOCL was "unconditional" and the HPCL
misread the terms of such NOC. It is placed on record by
learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the
vehicles (TTs) are released by IOCL on 24.01.2026. This
Court is persuaded to hold that non-compliance of
condition laid in Clause 6 of the General Terms and
Conditions of the Tender within the timeframe stipulated
in Clause 19 thereof was beyond control of the petitioner
and the same cannot be attributed to the bidder.
Conclusion:
8. In course of hearing of the present writ petition, it was
made clear that the case is confined to the issue whether
NOC issued by the IOCL on 01.08.2025 was conditional
one or unconditional. Therefore, other points which were
sought to be agitated by the opposite parties are not
addressed in this Order. This Court desists from
addressing any other issue which was de hors the show
cause notice issued to the petitioner.
9. For the reasons above stated coupled with factual details
as narrated, having held that the approach of the HPCL
in comprehending the NOC dated 01.08.2025 was not
"unconditional NOC prior to induction" is misconceived,
misdirected and unfathomable, and upon perceiving that
the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by
way of writ petition to challenge the cancellation of NOC,
which detained it from adhering to the time line given in
Clause 19 of the General Terms and Conditions, this
Court has no other option but to quash the penal action
taken against the petitioner, viz., cancellation of the LoA
and forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit, vide Letter
dated 08.01.2026.
9.1. The opposite parties are directed to give consequential
effect to the petitioner within a period of four weeks
hence.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ
petition is disposed of and pending interlocutory
application(s), if any, is disposed of accordingly, but in
the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
I agree.
(HARISH TANDON) (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
Designation: Personal Assistant
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
The 11th March, 2026//Aswhini/Bichi
CUTTACK
Date: 12-Mar-2026 17:56:58
