No debit deductions may be made until ERV disclosure, reply, personal hearing, and a speaking order are completed.

The petitioner, M/s Meghalaya Gas Agency, challenged the respondent authorities’ letter dated 18 February 2025 and the debiting/recovery of amounts allegedly relating to “Market Returns” cylinders for the years 2023–2024.

The petitioner contended that, although orders of the Meghalaya High Court and the Gauhati High Court had permitted affected agencies to submit replies and directed that deductions should not be made until then, it had not been supplied the relevant ERV records.

Despite this, deductions commenced on 10 March 2026 and had reached ₹10,32,000 by the date of hearing.

The respondents stated that they were willing to furnish the ERV details within two weeks and thereafter consider the petitioner’s reply following a personal hearing, in accordance with the Gauhati High Court’s judgment dated 17 March 2025 in WP(C)/1469/2025.

Whether the respondents were required to furnish the ERV records/details to the petitioner to enable it to submit an effective reply against the proposed debit or recovery relating to Market Returns cylinders

Whether further deductions or debit recoveries should be stayed until completion of the process of furnishing records, receiving the petitioner’s reply, granting a personal hearing, and passing a speaking order

What procedural directions should govern the respondents’ reconsideration of the petitioner’s liability

The Court applied the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice, particularly the requirement that a person affected by an adverse financial determination must be supplied with the material relied upon and given a meaningful opportunity to respond and be heard.

The Court also followed the procedural directions emanating from the Gauhati High Court’s judgment dated 17 March 2025 in WP(C)/1469/2025, under which affected petitioners were to be given an opportunity of personal hearing before the matter was finally determined.

Consequently, the respondents were required to furnish the ERV details, consider the petitioner’s reply, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned or speaking order; deductions were to remain suspended until completion of that process.

The Court found that the dispute was confined principally to the petitioner’s entitlement to obtain the ERV details underlying the debit or recovery.

Without access to those records, the petitioner could not effectively respond to the allegations or contest the proposed liability.

Applying the principles of natural justice and the procedural approach reflected in the Gauhati High Court’s judgment, the Court directed the respondents to provide scanned or physical copies of the ERV records within two weeks.

The petitioner was then to submit its reply within three weeks, after which the respondents were required to pass a speaking order within two weeks, following a personal hearing.

To preserve the effectiveness of this process, the Court restrained further debit deductions until the proceedings were concluded.

No further deductions or debit recoveries were permitted until completion of the entire process.

The petitioner was also permitted to raise all grounds urged in the writ petition before the respondents.

In view of the volume of records, the petitioner was allowed to visit the respondents’ office to obtain physical copies in addition to receiving the records by email.