17.08.2026 Court No. 12 Item No.04 Cp/Gb MAT 648 of 2026 With CAN 2 of 2026 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Surya Industries Alloy Limited & Ors. Mr. Rajendra Banerjee Mr. Pradyat Saha …..for the appellants. Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Advocate Mr. F. Ghaffar Mr. Kallol Saha ….for the respondent no. 1. 1. This is an appeal against an order dated March 24, 2026, passed in WPA 4762 of 2026. The learned Single Judge by the said order set aside the show cause notice dated November 20, 2025 and the order of delisting of the writ petitioners from the list of approved vendors, dated February 5, 2026. The learned Single Judge also granted liberty to the appellants to collect the defective samples in presence of the petitioners or its representative and to send the same to the agency for its testing. 2. The brief facts of the case of the appellants were that, pursuant to the tender notice dated February 2 21, 2025, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were issued a purchase order dated June 12, 2025, for supply of Composite Grooved Rubber Sole Plates (rail pads), which were classified as safety–critical items in railway track structure. In connection with such order, the writ petitioners supplied those materials and full payment of the consideration was made by the appellants, without raising any objection. Subsequently, one set sample of 10 mm thick CGRSP to Drg. No. RT- 8747 of Lot No.03 of PO No. 60250053102877 was picked up during super-check and sent for testing at the R& P lab of Metallurgical & Chemical (M & C) Directorate of RDSO. The testing of the sample was conducted thereafter at the R& P laboratory of M & C Directorate, and it was found from the M & C Test Report that the sample failed to conform to IRS Specification in respect of some of the prescribed parameters. The appellants subsequently issued a show cause dated November 20, 2025, to the respondent no. 1, directing it to explain within 30 days from the date of issue of that notice as to why penal action as per Para 4.2 of ISO 9001:2015 document dated July 23, 2025 should not be initiated against it. The appellants thereafter issued a temporary delisting order to the respondent no. 1 dated 3 February 5, 2026. The respondent no. 1 challenging, inter alia, the show cause notice and the order of delisting, filed the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants referred to P.1.1 of the “TESTING OF SAMPLES FROM THE LOTS ALREADY PASSED BY INSPECTING OFFICIAL/AGENCY AT THE VENDOR PREMISES/CONSIGNEE END/FIELD AND DEFECT CLASSIFICATIN” which stated as follows:- “P.1.1. Representative(s) of RDSO, Zonal Railway, Railway Board or Railway investigating agency shall pick up samples jointly with the field unit‟s representative, in case the sample is picked up from the field units/consignee end, and with the firm‟s representative in case the sample is picked up at the firm‟s premises (after the LOT has been passed by the inspecting agency, but before dispatch). In case, the firm does not cooperate in joint picking up of samples in firm premises, then a report is to be put up by Inspecting Railway Official to the Directorate head controlling the item at RDSO for penal action on the firm.” 4. He submitted that, in terms of Para P.1.1, the Railway Board or Railway Investigating Agency had the authority to pick up samples jointly with 4 the field unit‟s representative, even in absence of the firm‟s representative. Therefore, there was no procedural impropriety at the end of the appellants in carrying out the testing. He also submitted that, in terms of paragraph 6 of the Research Designs & Standards Organization there was a provision of appeal before the appellate authority. The writ petition was not maintainable in view of adequate alternative remedy available to the writ petitioners. 5. Per contra, Mr. Mazumder, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and 2, referred to paragraph 5 of the writ petition and submitted that the respondents had completed the whole transaction and full payment of consideration was made by the appellants to the respondent No. 1. He further submitted that the procedure adopted by the appellants grossly violated his clients‟ rights. The principles of natural justice was not followed. The sample was collected behind the back of the respondent no. 1, which was not permissible. 6. We have heard the parties. 7. It is well-settled that, a show cause notice can be challenged mainly on three grounds:- (i) If the said notice is without jurisdiction. 5 (ii) If it violates any statutory or other legal provisions. (iii) If the notice suffers from the vice of malice 8. In the instant case, the appellants have laid down a guideline/procedure contained in paragraph P.1.1 for Testing of Samples from the Lots already passed by Inspecting Official/Agency at the Vendor Premises/Consignee End/Field and Defect Classification (hereinafter referred to as the „said guidelines‟). It is contended that, paragraph P.1.1 of the said guidelines would clarify that, the railway board, the railway investigating agency, the RDSO shall have power to pick up samples jointly with the field unit‟s representative, in the absence of the firm‟s representative. It also has a provision that the same procedure shall be followed in the presence of the representative of the firm, in the event the sample is picked up from the premises of the firm. 9. The question which falls for consideration before us is whether in the instant case the presence of the representative of the firm at the time of collecting samples was necessary or not. 10. From the pleadings made by the respondent no.1, in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, which has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we find that the entire 6 transaction had already been completed and the respondent no.1 had also received the full payment of consideration. The materials had passed the first stage of inspection and was utilized. There is a presumption that the materials were in order. 11. In such circumstances, if any sample is picked up by the railway board or the railway investigating agency behind the back of the vendor/respondent no.1, the said vendor may suffer serious prejudice. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the railway board ought to have given at least a notice to ensure the presence of a representative of the firm. By not doing so, the appellant violated the principles of natural justice. In the peculiar facts of the case, as the contract was over and no defect had been pointed out either during the continuation of the contract or before the payment was released, the absence of the representative of the writ petitioners vitiated the entire process. It is also to be noted that the goods were utilized after proper testing by the authorities. We find substance in the submissions made by Mr. Majumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.1. It is a fit case which required the presence of the representative of the firm at the time of collecting samples and by not doing so, 7 the appellant violated the cardinal principles of reasonableness in administrative action. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed. 13. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 14. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)