S/L 6 08.09.2026 Court. No. 25 suvayan WPA 22490 of 2026 Surya Alloy Industries limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Jaydeep Kar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tanay Chakraborty Mr. Siddharth Shraff …for the petitioners. Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh Mr. Asit Kumar De …for the respondents. 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ application challenging the order dated August 14, 2026 wherein the railway authorities have temporary delisted the petitioners from the list of approved vendors of CGRSP and inspection of materials against purchase orders placed before the temporary delisting will continue to be carried out as per the existing policy/norms. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on May 19, 2026 a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioners directing the petitioners to explain within 30 days why penal action as per para 4.2 of ISO 9001:2015 Document QO-O-D8.1.11 Version 3.5 should not be initiated against the petitioners. The petitioners have submitted the detailed reply to the show-cause notice on June 15, 2026 wherein the petitioners have categorically denied the allegation made by the respondents in the show-cause notice. It is the specific case of the petitioners that no sample was taken in presence of the representative of the petitioners. It is also the case of the 2 petitioners that the respondent authorities have already pre-determined for delisting the petitioners and issued the show-cause notice on the same day. It is the further case of the petitioners that the respondent authorities have taken the action against the petitioners for delisting in terms of Clause 4.2.2 but none of the clauses are applicable to the petitioners for delisting the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent authorities have submitted the report and submits that the representative of the petitioners, namely, Mr. Sahadev Mohanty was present at the time of joint inspection and in his presence the samples were taken by the authorities on March 18, 2026. After taking the sample, it was sent for report and on receipt of the report it was found that the quality of the materials supplied by the petitioners did not confirm to the specification and accordingly a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioners and after receipt of the show-cause notice the authorities have not satisfied the show-cause notice and accordingly impugned order has been issued for delisting the petitioners for invoking the provision of Clause 4.2.2. He further submits that the petitioners have repeated failure to supply the materials as per such specification and accordingly the authorities are invoked the said provision and temporary delisted the petitioners. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties perused the materials on record. 5. The first issue raised by the petitioners that the sample taken by the authorities without any intimation to the 3 petitioners. It is found that on March 18, 2026 a joint inspection note was prepared wherein the sample was taken. In the said joint inspection one Mr. Sahadev Mohanty the representative of the petitioners’ firm was present and he has signed the said joint inspection report. The petitioners raised the contention that Mr. Sahadev Mohanty had been to the office of the respondent authorities for other purpose but no notice has been issued to the petitioners with regard to collection of the sample but they have taken the signature of Mr. Sahadev Mohanty for collection of the sample that cannot be treated as collection of the sample. 6. It is admitted that Mr. Sahadev Mohanty is the representative of the petitioners’ firm; he was present on March 18, 2026. On March 18, 2026 the joint inspection note was signed by Mr. Sahadev Mohanty but the petitioners have not made any communication on March 18, 2026 or subsequent thereof before the reply of the show-cause notice that Mr. Sahadev Mohanty was not present and no sample was taken in presence of Mr. Sahadev Mohanty and such it cannot be said that samples were not taken in presence of the representative of the petitioners. 7. The respondent authorities have issued show-cause notice on May 19, 2026 requesting the petitioners to explain within 30 days as to why appropriate action shall not be taken as per Clause 4.2 of the document. 8. Simultaneously, on May 19, 2026 the RDSO has sent a letter to the Principal Chief Engineer, East Coast Railway 4 informing that the sample which was forwarded to the R & P Laboratory for M & C Directorate, RDSO for testing; the testing of the sample has been completed in the R & P Laboratory and M & C Directorate, RDSO. As per the test report the sample has been found to be substandard quality. Hence, as per ISO apex document of RDSO, the lot is required to be rejected by the consignee. In one hand the respondent authorities are directed the petitioners to explain why an action shall not be taken in terms of the Clause 4.2 that is for delisting the petitioners’ firm and on the other hand from the letter dated May 19, 2026 forwarded by the RDSO to the Principal Chief Engineer, East Coast Railway which reveals that the RDSO already decided for rejection of the lot of the consignee. 9. Considering the above, this Court finds that before issuance of the show-cause notice to the petitioners, the authorities have already pre-determined for rejection of the lot of the petitioners. 10. As regards the terms and conditions of Clause 4.2.2 of the document, this Court finds that for the temporary delisting the following condition is required: “4.2.2 TEMPORARY DELISTING Temporary delisting of vendors can be restored to under the following conditions: (a) Cases where repeated failures are noticed in the items supplied. (b) Direction from law enforcing agencies. (c) If quality audit is refused by the firm or RDSO is not allowed by the firm to perform quality audit, the firm shall be temporarily 5 delisted and shall be removed from the vendor list in next updation, till such time quality audit is performed. (d) Expiry of ISO 9001 certificate. (e) \deficiencies/non-functioning of major machinery & plants affecting the quality. (f) During a course of time, if the specification is amended and the vendor is not upgrading the additional requirements within a specified timeframe. (g) Major deficiencies found during quality audit/process audit and their non- compliance. (h) The entire factor or part of it is reported closed/shut down/lock out. Note: In case of closure/lockout, the firm may be temporarily delisted and status restored on resumption after verification of facilities and audit of the production process, as decided by the Concerned Vendor Approving Authority (i) If change in the name, address, work place and ownership not intimated to RDSO within one month. (j) If sample picked up by an investigating agency (CBI/Vigilance) (as per prescribed procedure of sampling) fails in testing. (k) If the vendor does not participate in any of the Railway tender between two consecutive quality audits or in last five years, whichever is earlier. (l) Any other serious reason.” 11. The respondent authorities have relied upon Clause (a) and submit that the petitioners repeated failure to supply the item as per the specification. 6 12. This Court finds that on the earlier occasion on the same ground the petitioners were delisted and the said order was challenged before this Court and this Court has set aside the said order of delisting on the ground that the samples were not taken in presence of the petitioners and this Court has directed the authorities if the authorities intend to take appropriate action against the petitioners, sample should be taken in presence of the petitioners or representative of the petitioners and to take appropriate steps. The said order was challenged by the respondents to the appellate Court and the appellate Court also affirmed the order passed by this Court and as such the ground which the respondents have taken that the petitioners repeated failure to supply the item as per the specification cannot be sustained as the earlier order has already been set aside by this Court. 13. Considering the above, this Court finds that the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed. 14. However, this order will not prevent the respondent authorities for taking appropriate steps against the petitioners, if the authorities intending to take appropriate steps, the authorities are at liberty to take the samples in presence of the petitioners or its representative and to obtain the report and to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 15. WPA 22490 of 2026 is disposed of. 7 16. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)