After Centre’s assurance on LPG supply, Bombay HC disposes of PIL

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (March 17, 2026) disposed of a public interest litigation seeking a direction to increase the supply of domestic LPG cylinders, after the Central Government assured that steps were being taken to address the issue.

A division bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode on Tuesday (March 17, 2026) closed the petition filed by six distributors associated with Confidence Petroleum India Limited (CPIL). The petitioners had approached the court with a prayer to direct the company to augment the supply of household LPG cylinders, citing a gap between demand and availability.

The petitioners had sought a direction to increase the supply of domestic LPG cylinders to meet the requirements of local consumers. They had alleged that despite policy directions issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas prioritising LPG supply for domestic consumers, the company had failed to act on repeated representations made by distributors. The representations had sought a halt to LPG exports and an increase in supply to the domestic market.

The petition had further stated that disruptions in global crude supply arising from the Iran-Israel conflict had affected oil movement from countries such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Syria. This, according to the petitioners, had led to constraints in LPG production. They had contended that in view of the emerging supply situation, the Ministry had issued orders directing that LPG production and supply for domestic consumers be given priority.

The court disposed of the petition after the Central Government, through an affidavit filed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, submitted that all possible steps were being taken at domestic and international levels to ensure that citizens face no hardship. The affidavit stated that the government was monitoring the situation arising from “emerging changes in the international position” and taking remedial measures to ensure that such crises do not affect the country.

Mr. Mehta submitted before the bench that the issue was being handled at diplomatic levels and that the court must trust the government’s efforts. He argued that the situation remained ever-evolving and that it was for the Government of India to take steps domestically and internationally in the interest of its citizens.

The government further submitted that discussing or debating such issues in court proceedings may not be desirable, given the nature of the subject. It added that if any local issues arose from individual dereliction of duty by a distributor, strict action was being taken by the competent authorities.

Taking into account the submissions and the affidavit, the judges closed the petition. The petitioners were represented by advocates Shyam Dewani and Saahil Dewani.