Courts can’t fix railway safety deadlines: Cal HC

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it would be “highly improper” for a writ court to interfere in the timelines fixed by the Railways for supplying materials critical to track safety, observing that such decisions must rest with the technical and administrative authorities responsible for passenger security.

The bench of Justice Amrita Sinha made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by a private engineering firm that had challenged the South Eastern Railway’s cancellation of its purchase order for the manufacture and supply of elastic rail clips.

The court said there was no arbitrariness or illegality in the railway’s decision to withdraw an earlier extension granted to the supplier and to proceed with cancellation of the contract. The judge noted that the materials involved were “extremely vital and essential” for maintaining track infrastructure and ensuring the safety of passengers. “The railways are the best authority to decide within which period articles essential for passenger and track safety are to be supplied,” Justice Sinha said, making it clear that such matters fall outside the purview of writ jurisdiction. The case arose from a purchase order issued in March 2025 for the supply of elastic rail clips—small but crucial components used to fasten rails to sleepers. The supplier was initially given 30 days to deliver the materials but sought repeated extensions, citing manufacturing difficulties.

Although the Railway authorities first agreed to extend the delivery period till mid-July, they later revoked the extension after the company withdrew an inspection request it had itself made earlier. The authorities treated this as inconsistent conduct and, in August, cancelled the order while initiating penal proceedings under the purchase terms.

Justice Sinha held that the railway had acted within its rights to revoke the extension when delay could affect critical maintenance work.

The court dismissed the petition and a connected application, vacating the interim protection earlier granted to the firm. It, however, clarified that the supplier may approach a competent civil forum for relief in accordance with the law.