IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) W.P. No. of 2025 M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Dy.General Manager (LPG-S&D) Indian Oil Bhavan, 139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai600 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

W.P. No. of 2025

 

M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Rep. by its Dy.General Manager (LPG-S&D)
Indian Oil Bhavan,
139, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai600 034

…Petitioner

Vs.

1. Commissioner of Civil Supplies and
Consumer Protection Department
Ezhilagam,
Chennai.

2. Director General of Police,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai.

3. K Sundarrajan
President, Southern Regional Bulk L.P. G Transport Owners Association, No. 87, Salem Road, Namakkal- 637001

4. S Senthil Kumar
Secretary, Southern Regional Bulk L.P. G Transport Owners Association, No. 87, Salem Road, Namakkal- 637001

…Respondents

 

AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

I, Anup Kumar Samantaray, son of Late Akshay Jiban Samantaray, aged 56 years, currently working as Chief General Manager (LPG- S&D), Indian Oil Corporation having office at No.139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-
1. I am working as Chief General Manager (LPG-S&D) of Southern Regional Office, of the Petitioner Corporation (hereinafter referred as (IOCL) and as such well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case as disclosed from the records. I am authorized to file this writ petition and I have not filed any other similar Writ Petition seeking very same relief sought for in the present Writ Petition.

2. I respectfully submit that the Petitioner, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited is a Government of India Company incorporated under section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 and a Public Sector Enterprise of the Government of India under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India. One of the fortune 500 companies from India, globally. The Company deals with refining and marketing of the petroleum products like MS, HSD,SKO, LDO, LPG AND LUBES OIL in the country through its wide spread dealers network. Petitioner Corporation, engaged in marketing petroleum products through retail outlets and carrying on the business of distribution and sale of Liquefied Petroleum Gas, (LPG) to various consumers throughout India.

3. I respectfully submit that the Petitioner Corporation, apart from its aforesaid activities, is producing; LPG at its refineries and in other places, the Petitioner either purchases LPG from other companies or imports LPG from outside the country. From the refinery or from the importing location, LPG is carried and transported in bulk in tank Lorries to the bottling plants of the Petitioner for bottling of such LPG in cylinders in which LPG is being sold to the general Public for their domestic or commercial use. Public Sector Undertakings, Oil Marketing Company’s, IOCL, BPCL and HPCL, together have 22.93 crore customers registered with them out of which 22.68 crore customers are in the domestic category. Nearly 47.2% of total registered domestic customers have double bottle connections (DBC). All these customers are being served by O.M.C’s through 18,480 LPG distributors. Out of 22.68 crore registered domestic customers, 19.16 crore customers are active customers. The LPG coverage of the country estimated on the basis of active domestic connections and estimated household is around 70.5%. P.S.U, O.M.C’s have a total of 189 LPG bottling plants all over India with rated bottling capacity of around 15.6 million metric tonnes per annum (MMTPA). PSU O.M.Cs sold nearly 13.9 Million Metric Tonnes (MMT) of packed domestic LPG. To cater to the increased customer base, distributorships were added by PSU OMCs.

4. I respectfully submit that Oil Marketing Companies (IOCL, BPCL and HPCL) floated a BULK LPG TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT BY ROAD FOR THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Public E-Tender on Industry basis (IOC/HPC/BPC) on 01.03.2025 and was opened on 20.05.2025. This Bulk LPG transportation Contract is for a FIVE (5) year period till 31.08.2030.

5. The Petitioner respectfully submits that in order to maintain regular supplies of LPG to domestic and commercial customers of the Petitioner, the Petitioner is:
i. to arrange LPG either from their own source or from other oil companies or by import and
ii. to transport LPG to the Petitioner’s bottling plant for bottling the same in various capacities of LPG cylinders to be delivered to its customers.

In order to transport LPG from its source to the Petitioner’s Bottling Plants, the Petitioners hire tanker lorries and the transporter who transports bulk LPG from the source to the Petitioner’s Bottling Plants and the transporters of bulk LPG are:

i. to provide tank lorries to the Petitioner at the source of LPG
ii. to load bulk LPG into the tank lorries at the source,
iii. to transport bulk LPG to the bottling plant,
iv. to decant the bulk LPG at the bottling plant and
v. to return to the source for collecting further LPG and for transporting and decanting the LPG as mentioned above
vi. If the chain as mentioned in this paragraph is disturbed and LPG is not received at the bottling plant, the bottling of LPG into cylinders cannot be done resulting in delay in distribution of filled cylinders to the Petitioners LPG distributors for sale of the same to the general public.

6. If the tank lorries do not return back from the bottling plant to the loading location and report for loading, the stock at the loading location piles up creating ullage/containment problem either for fresh production or import of LPG. At import locations, the discharge from the LPG ships will be suspended leading to detention and huge demurrage charges.

7. In order to avoid (a) shortage of sufficient product at the LPG bottling plant and (b) ullage/containment problem at the source of LPG, be it at the Refinery or at the ports at which LPG is imported, maintenance of the complete chain as mentioned above is very vital in the public interest so that the interest of the general public, who are customers of the Petitioner and using LPG for their domestic as also commercial purpose, is not prejudiced.

8. I respectfully submit that the total number of trucks who secured LOAs in the Tender are as follows: –

18 MT 21 MT TOTAL No.
TAMILNADU 601 171 772
GENERAL 30 8 38
MSE General 311 83 394
MSE SC 20 6 26
MSE ST 12 1 13
MSE WOMAN 45 12 57
SC 95 12 107
ST 59 3 62
TOTAL READY TTs TN 572 125 697
SUIS SC 39 39
SUIS ST 29 7 36
TOTAL PROPOSED TTs TN 29 46 75

9. I respectfully submit that the 3rd and 4th Respondents are the Office bearers of the Southern Region Bulk LPG Transport Owners’ Association, situated at Namakkal, on behalf of their Members, now issued an email dated 21st June 2025 (copy enclosed) has inter-alia stated
“We are writing to reiterate our deep concerns regarding the Bulk LPG Transportation Tender 2025-30, which is adversely affecting our transport fraternity due to certain lacunae and issues that need immediate attention. Despite numerous discussions and communications, the problems persist and we are compelled to bring the following critical issues to your notice once again:
1. Withdrawal of LOIs/LOAs issued under SUIS category: Given the discontinuation of the SUIS policy by the Government of India, we request that all LOIs/LOAs issued under this non-existent scheme be withdrawn. Instead, LOIs should be issued to readily available trucks.
2. Underestimation of Truck Requirements: Based on our extensive experience and historical data, we believe that the truck requirements are substantially underestimated. We urge a re-evaluation of the tender’s estimated truck requirements to reflect the actual demand, ensuring an uninterrupted supply of cooking fuel and preventing dryouts and avoid taking trucks on ADHOC basis time and again.
3. Issues with SC/ST Participation, ATS, and Contract Violations: We have repeatedly highlighted issues related to SC/ST participation, the ATS clause, and violations of existing contract terms, including unauthorized changes in ownership without the Corporation’s permission. These issues need to be addressed promptly.
4. Blatant misuse of ATS Clause: The ATS clause, introduced violating all natural justice and without precedent in any PSU tender, is draconian and violates the principles of natural justice. We demand that ATS be allowed with a cap in a 1:1 ratio ONLY to prevent exploitation.
5.Non-Release of Payments: The persistent non-release of transportation payments and toll charges for the past three years has led to an unprecedented financial crisis, severely impacting our ability to operate. As a result, we have been forced to halt truck operations, which again directly affecting the livelihoods of huge number of transporters and their families. Given the substantial profits being reported by all Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), we find it inexplicable and unacceptable that payments are being withheld, causing undue hardship to our members. We urge immediate settlement of these outstanding payments to restore financial stability and resume operations. As you are aware, majority of our members belong to MSE Category. It is utterly disconcerting that despite belonging to the MSE category, which the Government of India is ardently promoting through various initiatives, the non-release of payments by PSU companies is inflicting an egregious injustice upon us.
Due to these pressing issues, our members are in an aggrieved and agitated state, as their livelihood is getting affected. Today, we held a meeting of all transporters at Namakkal, presided over by the AIMTC President, where it was unanimously decided to stop trucks indefinitely until these issues are resolved.
We urgently request your immediate intervention and convening of a meeting at Namakkal, allowing all our affected members to participate. We appeal to you to consider our concerns sympathetically, enabling the resumption of truck operations at the earliest.

10. I respectfully submit that the Petitioner issued a reply letter dated 10.10.2025 stating the following:-

This is with reference to your email communication dated expressing certain concerns regarding the Bulk LPG Transportation Tender 2025–30. The industry has examined the points raised and would like to clarify as follows:
1. Withdrawal of LOIs/LOAs under SUIS Category:

The Letters of Intent/Acceptance (LOIs/LOAs) issued under the Stand-Up India Scheme (SUIS) category were processed strictly in accordance with the prevailing guidelines and tender conditions at the time of issuance of the tender. The subsequent withdrawal of the Credit Guarantee Cover by the Ministry of Finance does not render these LOIs/LOAs automatically invalid, as the evaluation and issuance were completed in compliance with the tender methodology on the basis of confirmation letter received from the scheduled commercial bank.
During your recent visit to IOCL HO on 29th September 2025 this issue was discussed that OMCs shall obtain reconfirmation from the banks whether the banks shall honor the previously issued confirmation letter, some of which were issued before 31.03.2025 and disburse the loan under SUIS scheme. In the event the bank denies the issuance of loan under SUIS scheme then after following the due process of approval the LOAs issued shall be cancelled. It was also informed that the ready trucks present in the waitlist shall be allotted against this shortfall as per tender conditions.
OMCs have already started issuing letters to the banks and are awaiting replies. It is again re-iterated that action as discussed earlier is already being taken in this regard and shall be concluded in a timely manner as required for the scale of the job.
2. Estimation of Truck Requirements:
The estimation of truck requirements for the tender was carried out after detailed analysis of demand forecasts, supply linkages and the average travel time and waiting time required for transportation of the product. It may be noted that during the course of the last contract a number of new LPG sources have been commissioned or contracted by the OMCs. Nodal loading has also commenced from new sources connected with the KSPPL pipeline. Logistics is a dynamic business environment and changes in supply linkages are evident.
The provision for engagement of additional trucks on ad hoc basis remains available to address the temporary shortage of trucks since many trucks are moving from one OMC to another OMC or between the regions. The requirement of additional safety fittings in the new tender necessitates trucks to be out of the system for a brief period during which additional trucks shall be required and along with this there may be unforeseen situations or demand fluctuations. Thus, the assertion of “underestimation” does not hold merit.
3. Issues Relating to SC/ST Participation, ATS, and Contractual Compliance:
The Corporation has ensured that due representation of SC/ST entrepreneurs is maintained in accordance with Government of India’s guidelines and the bids of the SC/ST bidders has been evaluated as per the guidelines set forth in the tender document.
During your last visit it was categorically explained to you that OMCs can only act within the domain and purview of the tender and have no jurisdiction beyond it. If any SC/ST bidder is complaint to the tender condition, then there is no impediment for acceptance of such bids.
The issue of unauthorized ownership transfer of vehicles was scrutinized by the OMCs and established cases were immediately suspended. Further action like issuance of show cause and forfeiture of security deposits are also being initiated against the defaulters along with termination of contract. The action being taken on the transporters is as per the tender terms. It was also explained to you that the offence committed by the earlier transporter in the current contract cannot be transferred to the new bidder since both the tenders and agreements are separate from each other.
We again reiterate this issue is already being addressed and dealt with as per the terms of the tender and applicable policy provisions.
4. Allegation of Misuse of ATS Clause:
It is surprising and concerning to note that the very provisions and arrangements that were introduced at your request are now being opposed by you. You may like to recall that just after publication of the tender, your association had called an illegal strike citing various demands. One of the most prominent demand was a clause that would facilitate ownership transfer of trucks and quoting of such trucks by another prospective bidder. It was only on your relentless persistence that the industry was forced to introduce the Agreement to Sale clause upon which the strike was ended.
The ATS provision was incorporated to ensure operational flexibility and to address the challenges faced by entrepreneurs in offering trucks which are running in the current contract by some other owner. After publication of the clause through corrigendum there was no representation of any kind like the restriction of 1:1 ratio of owned: ATS.
If 1:1 ratio was the request, then it was very well present in the tender as attached trucks can be quoted in 1:1 ratio and attached trucks belong to a different owner. Hence the grounds of the earlier strike now come under question.
The clause has neither been introduced arbitrarily nor does it contravene the principles of natural justice. It was duly published as a corrigendum only on your request, which all bidders accepted while submitting bids. It may be noted that the ATS clause was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta on same grounds but was dismissed by the court.
5. Release of Payments:
The Corporation is committed to timely settlement of all legitimate transportation bills. Payments are released in line with the contractual provisions, unless in cases involving GST-related issues (particularly FCM cases) or inter-state transfer of trucks for operational requirements. Any pending cases are promptly addressed as soon as they come to our notice or based on feedback received from the concerned transporters. At present, no long-pending cases are in our knowledge. It is advised to share details of any specific cases to facilitate early resolution.
With regard to toll reimbursements, efforts are continuously being made to process and release payments, and a substantial amount has already been disbursed. However, delays have been observed in several instances due to non-submission of toll claims with requisite documents such as gazette notifications, or failure to submit claims within the stipulated timelines prescribed under the contract conditions. Necessary communications have already been issued by the respective Plant Managers to the concerned transporters to rectify these deficiencies for expeditious processing of payments. It is also advised to provide details of specific pending toll cases to enable their early settlement.
The Corporation continues to extend full support to MSE units, including adherence to MSME guidelines regarding payment timelines. There is no deliberate withholding of payments as alleged.
It is reiterated that the Corporation has maintained complete transparency and fairness throughout the tendering and operational processes. Unilateral stoppage of bulk LPG transportation services disrupts essential public supply and may attract action under contractual and statutory provisions. In light of the above you are advised to resume the operation of the bulk LPG tankers immediately.
We assure you that the Corporation remains open to constructive dialogue to resolve genuine issues and any specific grievances.

11. It is respectfully submitted that the request for taking all the quoted / qualified trucks is not in line with the Tender terms and conditions. Further, Corporation has not mentioned in the tender that all quoted / qualified trucks will be inducted.. With regard to the grievances mentioned by the respondents, already action is being taken within the purview of the prevailing guidelines and tender conditions.
It is submitted that LPG is an essential commodity and any disruption in movement / transportation of Bulk LPG to LPG Bottling Plants will directly affect the LPG Refill / cylinder supplies to household in the entire Southern Region.

12. I respectfully submit that as per tender conditions and Agreement signed by the Individual transporters with the Corporation, Transporters should not resort to strike which is termed as illegal, as the Contract has already been given to these Transporters for running their trucks, by which transporters are obligated to operate the contract executed and there is no individual grievance by running contractors and the association is trying to put pressure on IOCL by forcing a strike to induct the additional contractors / trucks.

13. Hence, it is most humbly submitted that the strike called by the Transporters with effect from 10.10.2025 is absolutely illegal. More so, considering the fact that the act of the Transporters to disrupt the operation/supplies from the Terminal / Plants by not placing the Trucks is with the sole intention of getting their unlawful demands. Furthermore, if the transporters are aggrieved that the terms of the tender are arbitrary or unlawful, they are free to invoke the appropriate legal remedies including that of approaching this Hon’ble Court. Whereas, they have not done so being fully aware that the tender terms are perfectly legal. While so, they are resorting to illegal means of pressure tactics by calling strike in breach of the Transport Contract.

14. The Petitioner further states that due to Respondent’s refusal to provide the vehicle at the LPG Bottling plant, the aforesaid chain as mentioned above is disturbed causing financial loss and damage to the Petitioner, as also prejudicing the interest of the general public, being the ultimate consumers.

15. The Petitioner further states that apart from the loss and damage that is caused to the Petitioner and prejudicing the interest of the general public, phenomenal loss to the exchequer of the nation. The Petitioner states that several requests were made by the Petitioner to the Respondent to refrain themselves from the aforesaid unlawful activity and to transport LPG at the bottling plant so that the chain is not disturbed.

16. The Petitioner states that in spite of the aforesaid requests, the Respondent refused to act in terms of the said Agreement and continues to commit breaches of the said agreement causing financial loss and damages as stated above.

17. The Petitioner further states that the Respondent is not only continuing the aforesaid illegal and wrongful acts but also instigating other transporters of bulk LPG or wrongfully blocking the other transporters from loading their tank lorries at the locations of the Petitioner.

18. Due to the Respondent’s actions as mentioned herein above, the chain as mentioned above is being disturbed and

i) the activities at the bottling plant are being affected
ii) huge ullage/containment problem at the Refinery is being generated
iii) discharge program of the ship through which LPG is being imported is also getting disturbed and affected causing huge financial loss to the Petitioner and other similarly placed public sector oil companies, the total quantum of which will run into crores of Rupees.

19. The Petitioner states that in any case, a prospective bidder cannot dictate terms on which a particular tender will be floated, in order to pressurize the Petitioner and make them agree to the unreasonable demands of the Respondent and similarly placed transporters, the Respondents are putting pressure by not loading and/or transporting bulk LPG. That the State functionaries as stated above are vested with various powers under the statutory provisions listed below that are relevant in the present context: –
A. It is submitted that the ‘petroleum and petroleum’ products have been declared as essential commodities under schedule set out in terms of Section 2-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
B. That the Central Government has also enacted Prevention of Black marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 which also makes a provision for ensuring supply of essential commodities and action to be taken in case supply thereof is in any manner hindered by any such persons.
C. Under, section 2(viii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, LPG is an essential commodity and under section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1999 Central Govt. has the power to control production, supply, and distribution etc of essential commodities. And Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution), order 2000, enacted to fulfill the provision made u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
20. That even otherwise due to strike by the transport contractors, the supply of petroleum products to the general public and to large public institutions is going to be affected in state of Tamil Nadu also, Hence, it is the duty of the Government of Tamil Nadu and its instrumentalities to take appropriate steps to ensure that the striking transporters do not succeed in their mission of creating scarcity of petroleum products, especially LPG Cylinders, for the general public and institutions which would in turn adversely affect not only the Petitioner Corporation but the public at large. Hence the Respondent Officials are bound to immediately respond to the situation.

21. It is submitted that the strike resorted by the Association is illegal for the following among other reasons:
a. The transporters cannot resort to strike for their demands in the new tender BULK LPG TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT BY ROAD FOR THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Public E-Tender on Industry basis (IOC/HPC/BPC) on 01.03.2025

b. The transporters have no grievance with regard to the existing contract entered with the petitioner.

c. The action of transporters in proceeding on strike attracts violation of various statutory enactments, as petroleum products being essential item and against the continuous supply is the obligation of the State Government.

d. The authorities of the State Government are bound to immediately take steps ensuring continuous supply of petroleum products and the same is warranted in greater public interest.

e. The action of the transporters in proceedings to strike is illegal as the same affect the right of the public at large to have access to essential commodities like Domestic and Commercial LPG Cylinders, etc.
22. That the Petitioner has not filed any such or similar writ petition earlier in this Hon’ble Court and that Petitioner has been left with no other effective alternative remedy other than to approach the Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that police is bound to give protection to the installation of the petitioner and necessary applications were already submitted.

The Petitioner states that due to the aforesaid breaches of the terms of the said agreement committed by the Respondent, the Petitioner has already suffered huge financial loss and damage which is being assessed. The Petitioner further submits that if the Respondent is not restrained from continuing their aforesaid wrongful acts, irreparable loss and damage will be caused.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to;
Issue a Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of Writ, more particularly, Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 2, to invoke the powers under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and other statutory enactment to take immediate steps for ensuring uninterrupted and continuous supply of LPG products at all locations of the Petitioner-Corporation in the State of Tamil Nadu;
Interim injunction restraining 3rd and 4th Respondents to forthwith stop the illegal strike and place their tanker lorries in terms of the contract entered between the transporters and petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition. Such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on
this the 10th day of October, 2025
and signed his name in my presence.

BEFORE ME

 

ADVOCATE, CHENNAI