$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14630/2025 & CM APPL. 62405/2025 ORIENTAL FOUNDRY PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. R. Sudhinder, Mr. Ashish Mukhi, Ms. Sanidhya Sonthalia, Mr. Kanishk Pandey, Mr. Om Shelat, Advocates (M:7330843243) versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF RAILWAY .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA O R D E R % 01.10.2025 CM APPL. 62405/2025 1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking directions, in view of the fact that after the passing of the order dated 22nd September, 2025, the petitioner received a letter dated 26th September, 2025 from the respondent-Ministry of Railways, Government of India. 2. The letter dated 26th September, 2025 issued by the Ministry of Railways, states as under: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2025 at 12:57:18 3. Reading of the aforesaid letter shows that when the order dated 22nd September, 2025 was passed by this Court, a decision had already been taken upon the representation dated 30th August, 2025 of the petitioner on 16th September, 2025. 4. As per the letter, only formal communication had been done on 26th This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2025 at 12:57:18 September, 2025. 5. This Court notes that when the present matter was listed on 22nd September, 2025, contractual period of the petitioner as per the extension granted was already over, since the extension to the petitioner was granted only till 31st August, 2025. 6. This Court had refused to interfere in the matter and it was only on the plea of the petitioner that its representation dated 30th August, 2025 was still pending, that the Court had passed the order dated 22nd September, 2025. 7. It is to be noted that when the matter was listed on 22nd September, 2025, the respondent was not represented. Therefore, the Court was not informed on 22nd September, 2025, that decision on the representation of the petitioner had already been taken. 8. This Court also notes that though final decision had already been taken by the respondent on 16th September, 2025, considering the order dated 22nd September, 2025 passed by this Court, wherein, this Court had directed that the representation of the petitioner dated 30th August, 2025 be decided within a period of four weeks after grant of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent vide its aforesaid letter dated 26th September, 2025, sought to give hearing to the petitioner with respect to review of its decision. 9. Accordingly, considering the fact that the representation of the petitioner already stood decided before passing of the order dated 22nd September, 2025 by the concerned Department, this Court finds no reason to interfere at this stage. 10. This Court further notes that even when the matter was taken up for hearing on 22nd September, 2025, this Court had made it clear that the Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2025 at 12:57:18 11. Considering the aforesaid, no merit is found in the present application. The same is accordingly, dismissed. MINI PUSHKARNA, J OCTOBER 1, 2025/au This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2025 at 12:57:18