Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Organisation & Ors vs Sigma Rail Systems Private ... on 4 September, 2023
04.09.2023
Item No.1
Ct. No.1
PG/KS
F.M.A. 618 of 2023
With
IA No. CAN 1 of 2023
+
CAN 2 of 2023
+
CAN 3 of 2023
Research Designs and Standards
Organisation & Ors.
VS
Sigma Rail Systems Private Limited & Anr.
Mr. Pramit Kumar Ray, Sr. Adv.
Mrs. Sarda Sha
Ms. Atamaja Bandhopadhyay
.....For the Appellants
Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soorjya Ganguli
Mr. Somdutta Bhattacharyya
Mr. Dhruv Chaddha
Mr. Devarshi Prasad
.....For the Respondents/writ petitioners
1. We have heard the learned advocates for the
parties.
2. Earlier, by order dated 26th July, 2023 after
taking note of the submissions made on either
side, this Court issued a direction for an
independent inspection to be done by the
R.D.S.O., Lucknow without in any manner being
influenced by the report drawn by the R.D.S.O.,
Kolkata. The operative portion of the order reads
as follows:-
"7. However, taking note of the
submissions of Mr. Ray that the safety
and security of the railway passengers
and the entire railway system is in
question, we direct that the products to
be supplied by the respondents/ writ
petitioners be inspected by the R.D.S.O.,
Lucknow in the presence of the
authorized representative of the
respondents/ writ petitioners. Such
inspection shall be carried out bearing
in mind the observations made by the
learned Single Bench, more particularly,
in paragraph 19 of the impugned
judgment and order.
8. It is to be noted that the inspection to
be carried out by the R.D.S.O., Lucknow
shall be independent and the opinion of
the R.D.S.O., Kolkata shall not weigh in
the minds of the R.D.S.O., Lucknow and
the inspection report be drawn and the
conclusions shall be summarized in a
precise manner and submitted before
this Court on the next hearing date.
Based on such report, the Court will pas
appropriate orders.
9. We are informed by the learned
senior advocate appearing for the
appellants that minimum 15 days time
has to be given to the R.D.S.O.,
Lucknow to conduct and complete the
inspection. We, therefore, grant 15
days time from the date of receipt of
server copy of this order to the R.D.S.O.,
Lucknow to conduct the inspection and
file their report. It is reiterated that
such inspection shall be an independent
inspection without being in any manner
influenced by the report drawn by
R.D.S.O., Kolkata.
10. Let the affidavit-in-opposition
be filed by the respondents/writ
petitioners after serving copies on the
learned advocate appearing for the
appellants. Liberty to file affidavit-in-
reply is granted.
11. The appellants shall also be at
liberty to file an affidavit-in-opposition to
I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2023 filed by the
respondents/writ petitioners.
12. The learned senior advocate for the
appellants submitted that the contempt
proceeding initiated by the
respondents/writ petitioners may be
deferred. The learned senior advocate
appearing for the respondents/writ
petitioners would fairly submit that his
clients will not pursue the contempt
application till further orders from this
Court."
3. Pursuant to the above direction, the R.D.S.O.,
Lukcnow has conducted the inspection and
submitted its report. The conclusion drawn by
the R.D.S.O., Lucknow is to the following effect.
"Conclusions:-
Based on the observations above and it's
analysis, it is found that -
1. Product lots offered by the firm, found to fulfil
the requirements of the ATP.
2. For clause 5.3.7, from testing procedure, clause
is found to be complying up to the standard
schedules of dimensions, followed by Indian
Railways. Further, it is suggested that the firm
should come up with some suggestion to
optimize the sensitivity of its axle detector, so
that it does not get disturbed by stray metallic
movement in vicinity. This requirement is
particularly required keeping in view the Indian
railway track condition and working which are
different from foreign conditions.
3. Clause 5.4.3 of RDSO's specification no.
RDSO/SPN/176/2013 Version 3.0 was fond to
be not complied, as discussed in observation
2.4 above. While, in their clause wise
compliance, the firm had shown it as complied,
which is found to be incorrect."
4. In the light of the above report, we are inclined to
slightly modify the order and direction issued by
the learned Single Bench dated 17th May, 2023
more particularly, the direction issued in
paragraph 19 by maintaining the findings and
observations made therein and by including one
line by directing the concerned authorities
namely, the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 in the writ
petition to carry out the directions issued by the
learned Single Bench by also taking note of the
report drawn by the R.D.S.O., Lucknow dated
11th August, 2023.
5. The learned senior advocate appearing for the
respondents/writ petitioners submitted that this
may result in prejudice to their clients as the
matter will be taken to the Stage - I, which will
not be conducive. Therefore, it is prayed that the
appeal itself be heard out at an early date.
6. Considering the business of the Court, the
earliest date, which can be assigned for the
appeal to be heard out is 4th October, 2023.
7. Let the appeal be listed on 4th October, 2023.
8. Since all the relevant documents are available in
the stay petition as well as in the applications,
the filing of informal paper book is dispensed
with.
10. In the light of the above direction, we request
the learned Single Bench to defer the hearing of the
contempt application.
(T. S. SIVAGNANAM)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
