No Deemed Approval or Extension for New Concrete Sleeper Plants Lacking Mandatory Railway Sidings

The petitioner applied for approval to establish a new Concrete Sleeper Plant (CSP) in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, on April 1, 2025

Although the petitioner claims to have completed all formalities and submitted requisite documents by March 2026, the Railway authorities have not yet granted formal approval.

During the pendency of the application, the Ministry of Railways (RDSO) issued new guidelines/instructions (dated May 22, 2026) providing a one-time extension until December 31, 2026/2027, for existing or stabilized CSPs to commission railway sidings.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to grant provisional approval and extend the siding commissioning deadline to them, arguing they should be treated at par with existing plants.

The respondents contended that the petitioner, as a new entrant without existing approval, is governed by stricter extant policies requiring a functional siding for initial approval.

1. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to grant "deemed approval" or compel technical certification of a Concrete Sleeper Plant by the High Court under Article 226.

2. Whether a new applicant for a CSP is entitled to the benefit of relaxation/extension for commissioning railway sidings provided under the guidelines dated May 22, 2026, which are specifically applicable to existing or stabilized plants.

The court applied the principle of judicial restraint in technical matters, noting that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to bypass statutory or robust administrative mechanisms involving technical assessments.

Administrative relaxations or specific policy guidelines must be interpreted strictly according to their eligibility criteria; here, the guidelines distinguished between "existing/stabilized CSPs" and "new applicants".

The court also reaffirmed that there is no concept of "deemed approval" in such complex regulatory frameworks.

The court reasoned that granting the requested relief would constitute a "deemed approval," which is impermissible given the multi-stage technical scrutiny required, including mix design approval, sample testing, and capacity evaluation.

The court emphasized its lack of technical expertise to substitute the satisfaction of the approving authority.

Regarding the 2026 guidelines, the court found the petitioner's reliance "misplaced" because the relaxation was a limited concession for plants already in operation or previously approved under the 2021 policy.

Since the petitioner’s plant was not yet approved or stabilized, they remained governed by the standard requirement that a railway siding must be ready for use prior to the grant of approval.

The court viewed the petition as an attempt to achieve indirectly (approval) what the petitioner had not yet secured through the formal regulatory process.

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, though the court clarified that the authorities may decide the pending application on its own merits in accordance with the law.