Disposed

Concrete Sleeper Manufacturers Association of India Cosma v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC11 Aug 2025W.P.(C)/12005/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Association of PSC sleeper manufacturers sought implementation of the Railway Board's 2021 Revised Policy on Concrete Sleeper Plants, alleging arbitrary approvals and anti-competitive tender participation. Court directed respondents to decide its representations within three months after personal hearing and a speaking order, disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to decide representations within three months with personal hearing and pass a speaking order; liberty reserved.

Concrete Sleeper Manufacturers Association of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~51

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 12005/2025 & CM APPL. 49030/2025 CONCRETE SLEEPER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA COSMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tanya Aggarwal, Mr. Aakarsh Mishra, Ms. Vaishnavi, Mr. Akshat Khanna, Advocates Mob: 7093307638 Email: [email protected]

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Ms. Yogya Bhatia, Advocates for UOI Mob: 8377917574 Email: [email protected], [email protected]

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶7

O R D E R % 11.08.2025

¶8

The present writ petition has been filed by Concrete Sleeper Manufacturers Association of India (“COSMA”), the petitioner association, a body of duly qualified manufacturers of Pre-Stressed Concrete (“PSC”) Sleepers. The petitioner is aggrieved by non-implementation of the ‘Revised Policy for setting up Concrete Sleeper Plants’ (“CSPs”), as issued by the

¶9

This is a digitally signed order.

¶10

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2025 at 13:11:15

¶11

Ministry of Railways, Government of India (Railway Board), on 19^th February, 2021.

¶12

It is submitted that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court, as the respondents have, despite binding nature of the revised Policy, failed to implement mandatory provisions in both letter and spirit. Thus, it is submitted that this failure has led to arbitrary grant of “Developmental Plant” status, inconsistent approvals across Zonal Railways, absence of the RDSO online portal, and the participation of non-compliant entities in tenders, resulting in anti-competitive practices and monopolistic tendencies and in a complete subversion of the object, structure, and integrity of the Policy framework.

¶13

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that two representations dated 1^st July, 2025, highlighting the said issues have already been given to the respondents. However, no reply has been received till date.

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the copy of the petition served upon them, includes only one representation and not two representations.

¶15

He further submits that complete copy of the petition has not been served upon the respondents, as the documents being relied upon by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of arguments, are not available in the file provided to the respondents.

¶16

It is submitted that be that as it may, reserving the right of the respondents to be supplied full copy of the petition, the respondents shall decide the representations of the petitioner, within a time-bound manner.

¶17

Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court, it is

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2025 at 13:11:15

¶20

directed that a complete copy of the present petition, along with complete set of annexures and documents, shall be provided to learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the Email, which is reflected in today’s order.

¶21

In view of the submissions made before this Court, it is directed that the representations dated 1^st July, 2025, submitted by the petitioner to the Railway Board, shall be decided, expeditiously, within a time bound manner, preferably, within a period of three months from today.

¶22

During the course of deciding the representations of the petitioner, the respondents shall give opportunity of personal hearing to the authorized representatives of the petitioner.

¶23

In case, any documents are required by the respondents during the course of hearing, liberty shall be given to the petitioner to submit such documents with the respondents.

¶24

A speaking order shall be duly passed by the respondents upon the representations of the petitioners, copy of which, shall be supplied to the petitioner through its counsel on the E-mail, which is reflected in today’s order.

¶25

In case the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the speaking order passed by the respondent, the petitioner shall have liberty to seek its remedies in accordance with law.

¶26

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with the pending application, is accordingly disposed of.

¶27

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶28

AUGUST 11, 2025 ak

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2025 at 13:11:15

Concrete Sleeper Manufacturers Association of India Cosma v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Concrete Sleeper Manufacturers Association of India Cosma v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Singh Vs the Regional Labour Commissioner Central & Anr.

Manoj Chauhan Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5 & Anr.

Quattro Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Circle 19(1), Delhi

Sangeeta Negi Vs Bharti Public School, through Its Manager & Ors.

Mr Deepak Duggal Vs Delhi Development Authority

Kings Dorian Exports Vs Irfan

M/S Elementto Lifestyles Vs Mr. Deepak Singh Bora

Santosh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Raj Kumar Vs Delhi Cantonment Board & Anr.

Charan Kamal Singh & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Krishan Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Subhash Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Smt. Sivabakkiyam Periyasamy @ Priya Shiva Vs Union of India & Anr.

Uei Global Education Private Limited Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited & Ors.