The court granted interim relief by staying a penalty because the imposition of such a penalty casts a stigma on the distributor, potentially causing irretrievable injury, regardless of the monetary amount.

O R D E R

Issue notice making it returnable on 29.05.2026.

2. Mr. M. Sarmah, the learned Standing Counsel of the IOCL accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. This Court is however not inclined to issue notice upon the Respondent No.4. Extra copies of the writ petition be served upon Mr. M. Sarmah, the learned Standing Counsel of the IOCL during the course of the day.

3. The Petitioner herein is a distributor of LPG of the Respondent Corporation. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the order dated 30.03.2026 whereby in terms with Clause 3.2 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2022 for LPG Distributorship (for short, ‘the Guidelines of 2022’), the Petitioner has been penalized for an amount of Rs.87,139/-. The grounds on which the impugned order has been passed are on account of violation of Clause 2.2.8 and Clause 2.2.6 of the Guidelines of 2022. In terms with Clause 2.2.8 of the Guidelines of 2022, minor penalty can be imposed if there is a deliberate delay in refill supplies, and similarly, in terms with Clause 2.2.6 of the Guidelines of 2022, minor penalty can be imposed if there is a closure of the showroom on working days/during working hours.

4. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that there was no deliberate delay in refill supplies in so far as the request made by the Respondent No.4 in as much as without the Delivery Authentication Code generated at the end of the Respondent Corporation, the question of releasing the LPG cylinder does not arise. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this particular plea was duly taken in the reply to the show cause notice vide the email submitted by the Petitioner on 01.03.2026. However, a perusal of the impugned order dated 30.03.2026 shows that this aspect was not dealt with. In so far as the violation to Clause 2.2.6 of the Guidelines of 2022, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the first half on 11.02.2026, the shutters of the showroom of the Petitioner were down on account of temporary suspension of operations during the first half of the day which was necessitated by a local bereavement on account of the passing of a highly respected elderly resident in the immediate business neighbourhood. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the said aspect was duly taken note of by the Respondent Authorities in the order dated 30.03.2026, but on the ground that the Petitioner did not inform the Field Officer and IDO officials beforehand, the penalty has been imposed. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that a perusal of the Guidelines of 2022 would not show that there is a requirement for providing any information to the Field Officer and IDO officials beforehand, and as such, the imposition of the penalty in terms with Clause 2.2.6 of the Guidelines of 2022 is required to be interfered with.

5. Mr. M. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that he would obtain necessary instructions and bring on record the stand by filing an affidavit on or before 22.05.2026.

6. The Petitioner is granted liberty to file reply thereagainst.

7. This Court further duly takes note of the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that there is a requirement for passing interim directions in as much as the imposition of the penalty of Rs.87,139/- is not the issue, but it casts a stigma on the Petitioner which results in an irretrievable injury to the Petitioner.

8. Taking into account the submission so made hereinabove, it is the opinion of this Court that the Petitioner has been able to make out a case for certain interim direct