No Deemed Approval for Unapproved Concrete Sleeper Plant, Allahabad HC Tells Railway Vendor

Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench dismisses writ seeking mandamus for Railway approval of a new Concrete Sleeper Plant, holding extension policy applies only to already-approved plants.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S Calcutta Springs Limited, which sought a direction compelling the Ministry of Railways to grant approval—or provisional approval—to its proposed Concrete Sleeper Plant (CSP) at Village Pendari, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. The Bench, comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, held on 17 July 2026 that no writ of mandamus could issue to force approval through a multi-stage technical process, and that the new Railway guidelines extending siding deadlines applied exclusively to plants already approved or already operating under the Railways. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Dispute Before the Court

M/S Calcutta Springs Limited, through its authorised signatory Nirmal Kumar Gope, applied on 1 April 2025 to set up a new Concrete Sleeper Plant under the Railways. The company stated it had completed virtually all the requisite formalities and had furnished the required documents to the Railways by March 2026. Despite this, approval had not been granted by the time the petition was filed.

The petitioner sought four broad reliefs in Writ-C No. 6335 of 2026. First, a mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 (the Railway authority) to process and issue approval or provisional approval for the CSP at Bilaspur forthwith under the policy dated 19.02.2021 read with instructions dated 29.09.2023. Second, the same direction subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking to commission the railway siding within the timeframe granted to similarly placed CSPs under instructions dated 22.05.2026. Third, a direction permitting the petitioner to participate in tender processes published by Respondent No. 1 (the Ministry of Railways). Fourth, a call for Railway records to verify reasons for delay in granting approval.

Counsel for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Uday Gupta assisted by Ram Nath Pandey, placed reliance on guidelines issued by the Research Designs and Standards Organisation (RDSO) of the Ministry of Railways. Those guidelines dealt with two categories of plants: CSPs already approved under the revised policy dated 19.02.2021 that had not yet commissioned their railway sidings, and CSPs approved prior to that policy that were similarly placed. For the first category, a one-time opportunity was granted to commission the siding by 31 December 2026. For the second category, the deadline extended to 31 December 2027.

The argument was that parity demanded the petitioner also be permitted to set up its plant and be granted an extension for commissioning the railway siding up to 31 December 2026.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether a company whose CSP application remained pending and unapproved could claim the benefit of guidelines designed to give existing, approved plants more time to commission their railway sidings. Coupled with this was the question of whether a High Court could, by a writ of mandamus under Article 226, effectively direct the Railway authority to grant approval—bypassing a multi-stage technical scrutiny process.

The Union of India, represented by Senior Advocate S.B. Pandey, DSGI, assisted by Varun Pandey, resisted the petition on both counts. The DSGI's submission was direct: the extension for commissioning of railway siding under the policy was available only to existing CSPs already in operation. A new entrant, such as the petitioner, could not be granted approval without an existing siding in place, as required by the current policy framework.

How the Bench Reasoned

The Bench examined the RDSO guidelines and the petitioner's application status. It found that the petitioner had not been granted approval by the Railways as of the date of the hearing. The application was, therefore, still pending.

The Court identified a critical consequence of this status: because the petitioner's application was pending and ungoverned by the old regime, it would necessarily be governed by the new guidelines issued by the Railways. Those guidelines, on their face, did not extend any benefit to unapproved or first-time applicants.

On the question of whether mandamus could lie, the Bench made its reasoning clear. Granting any relief of the kind sought would amount to deemed approval of the CSP by judicial order. The Court observed that Railway approval operates through a structured multi-stage mechanism involving scrutiny of documents, verification of source materials, physical inspection of plant and machinery, gauge checking, mix design approval, testing of samples, and evaluation of the capacity and capability of the plant. Each stage requires a technical assessment and the satisfaction of the Railway authority. The Court held that absent the completion of this process, approval could not be granted, and that the High Court, being without technical expertise, could not step into the shoes of the approving authority.

The Bench was equally clear that the RDSO guidelines could not assist the petitioner. Those guidelines granted a limited relaxation only to plants already in operation. The petitioner's plant had not yet been approved, so the question of granting an extension for creation of a railway siding “does not arise in the present facts and circumstances.” The Court described the petitioner's reliance on the guidelines as “wholly misconceived/misplaced.”

The argument that the petitioner should receive approval along with a siding extension up to 31 December 2026 was characterised as a far-fetched claim that could not be accepted. The benefit of extension was, the Court held, specifically available only to those applicants already operating CSPs for the Railways under the policy dated 19.02.2021, or those who had already been approved as CSPs before that policy was issued. The petitioner fell into neither category.

The Bench also addressed what it viewed as the true nature of the relief sought. It observed that the claim appeared to be seeking indirectly what the petitioner had failed to obtain directly—namely, approval for its plant. The Court stated that since there is no concept of deemed approval in the Railway's regulatory framework for CSPs, the petition could not be sustained.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Writ-C No. 6335 of 2026 as being devoid of merit on 17 July 2026.

The Court took care to clarify that its order carried no comment on the merits or otherwise of the pending application filed by M/S Calcutta Springs Limited for approval of its CSP. The application remains pending before the Railway authority and, as the Bench directed, may be decided by that authority on its own merit, in accordance with law.