07 19.08.2025 d.p. In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side W.P.A 18214 of 2025 Chartered Engineering and Trading Enterprises -versus Union of India & Ors. Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Mr. Uttam Sharma, Mr. Souradeep Banerjee, Ms. Vrinda Kedia. …For the Petitioner. Mr. Mohit Gupta, Ms. Sarda Sah. …For UOI. Mr. Dipanjan Datta, Ms. Sukanya Datta. …For the Bank of Baroda. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. The petitioner participated in a tender process floated by the South Eastern Railway on 19th December, 2024. As per the tender document, the bidder was required to supply, install, commission and test the Ongrid solar power plant with domestic cell and modules. 3. According to the petitioner, domestic cells under the approved list of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy are not available. As per the office memorandum of the Ministry dated 10th July, 2025 behind-the-meter project for captive consumption of government entities or public sector enterprises are exempted from using ALMM enlisted solar PV cells, if commissioned prior to 01.06.2026. 2 4. A letter of acceptance was issued in favour of the petitioner on 30th January, 2025 clearly mentioning that the competent authority accepted the rates offered by the petitioner in connection with the subject work and the entire work is to be completed within six months from the date of issuance of the letter of acceptance. All other terms and conditions as stipulated in the tender document shall be applicable. 5. An inspection was conducted by the authority and it was found that the petitioner was using ‘Made in China’ solar cells instead of the domestic one. The authority proceeded to cancel the tender of acceptance by holding that the petitioner abandoned the contract. 6. As per the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) contract is required to be executed within seven days of notice from the railways that the contract agreement was ready. The authority took note of the fact that the petitioner did not sign the contract agreement though request letter was sent on 24th July, 2025, 28th July, 2025 and 30th July, 2025. 7. On 30th July, 2025, the contract was digitally signed with a condition that the clarification of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy clarification regarding solar cells be incorporated in the contract. Price escalation and time extension was also requested to be incorporated in the contract. Without the changes as mentioned the petitioner could not move ahead with the agreement. 8. The petitioner clearly mentioned that it cannot provide the domestic cell as mentioned in the tender document and without the change being made in the contract, the petitioner cannot be legally bound to make supply. 3 9. The authority did not accept the conditional signature wherein the petitioner denied to provide material as per the contract. The authority opined that the same was clear abandonment of the contract. The tender of acceptance was treated to be cancelled and the petitioner debarred from participation in the re- tender of the work and the bid security and other dues payable has been forfeited. The performance guarantee which was submitted by the petitioner has also been invoked. 10. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same. 11. Specific contention of the petitioner is that there is an exemption for use of the solar cells from the approved list of the Ministry. The petitioner intends to complete the work with the modules which it has already procured. Huge sum of money has been invested in making the construction work for setting up the solar panels. 12. Prayer has been made to set aside the order of termination and to permit the petitioner to conclude the work with the modules that it had already purchased. 13. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the railways submits that as per the GCC, the petitioner would be bound to use materials which are made in India in terms of the Make in India Policy 2017 issued by the Government of India. Though the petitioner submitted offer disclosing rates for supplying domestic cells but in fact, it was using solar cells imported from China. The same is contrary to the Make in India Policy. 14. It has further been contended that the authority accepted the rate given by the petitioner by disclosing that the petitioner would use domestic cells. The petitioner failed to provide the domestic cells and 4 as such, the authority has rightly opined that the petitioner has abandoned the contract. 15. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents also relies upon the PM-Surya Ghar guidelines which clearly mention that domestic manufactured solar PV modules using domestically manufactured solar cells shall be used in the Scheme. 16. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and on perusal of the documents placed before this Court, it appears that a dispute has been raised by the petitioner with regard to the availability of domestic solar cells. 17. The petitioner contends that the domestic solar cells are not readily available and those that are available are not enlisted in the list published by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. 18. The modules that the petitioner is using already contain solar cells and the petitioner does not have any control over those cells. 19. On a perusal of the GCC, it appears that there is an in-house provision for settlement of disputes. The Indian Railway Arbitration and Conciliation Rules hold the field. 20. The clause specifically mentions that all disputes and differences of any kind whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the contract whether during the progress of the work or after its completion and whether before or after the determination of the contract, shall be referred by the contractor to the Chief Engineer or Divisional Railway Manager through notice of dispute. The conciliators shall assist the parties to reach an amicable settlement in an independent and impartial manner within the terms of the contract. 5 21. As it appears that there is already an in- house dispute redressal mechanism laid down in the GCC published by the Government of India (Ministry of Railways), accordingly, the writ Court would not like to enter into any disputed question of facts which has cropped up in the instant writ petition. 22. It will be open for the petitioner to avail the prescribed remedy in accordance with law, if so advised. 23. The writ petition stands disposed of. 24. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. ( Amrita Sinha, J.)