A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed that the approval mechanism envisaged by the Railways involves technical scrutiny at several stages and that the Court lacks the expertise to substitute its assessment for that of the approving authority.

Case in brief

Briefly put, the petitioner had sought a direction to the Railway authorities to grant approval to its Concrete Sleeper Plant situated at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

Alternatively, it prayed that approval be granted subject to an undertaking that it would commission the railway siding within the extended timeline provided under the Railways instructions dated May 22 2026.

It also sought permission to participate in Railway tenders pending formal approval.

Before the Court, the petitioner submitted that it had applied for setting up the CSP on April 1 2025 and had completed virtually all requisite formalities by March 2026.

It argued that since the Railways had granted existing CSPs additional time to commission railway sidings, a similar benefit ought to be extended to its proposed plant.

The Railways opposed the plea, contending that the relaxation was confined to already approved or operational Concrete Sleeper Plants and could not be extended to fresh applicants.

It was submitted that under the prevailing policy, a new entrant cannot be granted approval without an existing railway siding.

High Court's observations

Accepting the Railways' submissions, the Bench noted that the petitioners' application for approval was still pending. It added that granting the relief sought would effectively amount to deemed approval which the Court could not grant.

The Court observed thus:

"Any relief granted to the petitioner as being sought would tantamount to deemed approval by the Railway authority which cannot be the purview of law as we understand that a robust mechanism has been provided for such approval".

The Bench added that approval of a Railway Concrete Sleeper Plant is preceded by multiple stages of scrutiny including verification of documents, inspection of plant and machinery, gauge checking, approval of mix design, testing of samples, and evaluation of the plant's capacity and capability.

Since each stage requires technical satisfaction of the competent authority, the Court said that judicial intervention cannot replace that statutory process

The court reasoned:

“This Court being bereft of any technical expertise cannot step into the shoes of the approving authority to make a technical assessment and grant approval to the petitioner. We are also clear in our mind that a writ of mandamus also cannot be issued in that regard"

The Bench further held that the Railways' subsequent relaxation extending the deadline for commissioning railway sidings was intended only for plants that had already been approved or were already operating.

It noted that since the petitioner's plant had not yet received approval, it was not entitled to claim the benefit of the extension. The Court described the petitioner's reliance on the guidelines as wholly misconceived/misplaced.

Rejecting the plea, the Court observed that the petitioner's attempt to secure approval along with an extension of time was a far-fetched argument and could not be accepted.

It further remarked that the relief sought seems to be in disguise as it tries to achieve something indirectly, i.e. the approval which it has failed to achieve directly.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the Bench clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioner's pending application for approval, leaving it open to the competent authority to decide the same independently in accordance with law.