IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao W.P.A. No. 24149 of 2025 Surya Alloy Industries Limited & Anr.

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Farhan Ghaffar Mr. Kallol Saha Mr. Akash Ghosh Mr. Gourab Das ....For the petitioners.

Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh Ms. Sayani Roy Choudhury …. For the Union of India.

Hearing Concluded On : 09.01.2026 Order On : 22.01.2026

ORDER

1. The respondents have raised the point of maintainability of the present writ application on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ application as no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and there is a provision of appeal against the impugned order.

2. Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh, Learned Advocate representing the respondents submits that the East Coast Railway issued a tender notice from Bhubaneswar for manufacture and supply of Elastic Rail Clips MK-V with Flat Toe for 60kg/52 kg Rail conforming to RDSO Drawing No. T-5919 Alt.2. He submits that the petitioner has participated in the said tender process and work order was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 4 from Visakhapatnam outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Mr. Ghosh submits that no materials were supplied within the State of West Bengal. He submits that the impugned order was issued by the respondent no.3 from Lucknow outside the jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that the petitioners have filed the present writ application before this Court on the grounds that all the correspondences with respect to the tender work was made by the respondents with the petitioners at their registered office at Kolkata and the impugned order is also served to the petitioners at Kolkata. He submits that mere correspondences made between the parties cannot be said that cause of action arose at Kolkata.

4. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Alchemist Limited and Another Vs. State Bank of Sikkim & Others reported in AIR 2007 SC 1812 and submits that the mere fact that the petitioners carries on business at Calcutta or that the reply to the correspondence made by it was received by the petitioner at Calcutta is not an integral part of the cause of action.

5. Mr. Ghosh further relied upon an unreported order passed in the case of M/s. Vishal Janardan Patil & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. in WPA No. 6802 of 2025 dated 16th May, 2025, wherein the Coordinate Bench held that the work in question was executed in the State of Sikkim, the tender may have been floated on the electronic mode but the same cannot be said to be the guiding factor for invoking the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court.

6. Mr. Ghosh submits that in the impugned order, it is categorically informed to the petitioner can prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority of RDSO within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of the impugned order. He submits that Clause 4.3 of the RDSO’s apex ISO Document No. QO-D-8.1-11 Version 3.5, there is a specific provision for appeal but the petitioner without filing an appeal, has filed the present writ application.

7. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon an unreported order in the case of Jekay International Track Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Research Design & Standards Organization and Ors. in WPA No. 25634 of 2024 dated 7th October, 2024, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court held that the authority reserved the right to test the samples. The provisions of the ISO document which permitted the authority to take such decision, have been discussed in the order. A show cause notice was issued, inspection was held in presence of the petitioner and answer to the show cause notice was considered point wise, thus the case does not fall under the exceptional circumstances which permit judicial review.

8. Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioners submits that all correspondences