JUDGMENT : Amrita Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner no. 1 company claims to be engaged in the business of manufacture of railway wagons, components for passenger coaches, alloys steel casting for rolling stack and track. The petitioner no. 2 claims to be the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner no. 1. 2. The petitioners in WPA 3234 of 2025 challenged the order passed by the respondents downgrading the petitioner company from the ‘list of approved vendors, to the ‘list of RDSO vendors for developmental orders’. The aforesaid order was preceded by a show cause notice to which the petitioners submitted its reply. The order impugned was appealable before the appellate forum. 3. At the time of filing of the said writ petition it was brought to the notice of the Court that the appeal preferred by the petitioners was pending consideration. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the petitioners’ appeal in accordance with law within a stipulated time period. The appeal preferred by the petitioners stood rejected and the order of the appellate authority has been challenged in the subsequent writ petition filed by the petitioners being WPA 14430 of 2025. 4. Both the writ petitions are taken up for consideration analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 5. The petitioner company was issued a contract for manufacture of standardised brake disk for LHB coaches by the Indian Railways. The brake disks were to be manufactured as per the drawing approved by the Research Designs and Standards of Organisation (‘RDSO’ for short). The prototype of the brake disks was to be inspected by RDSO and after prototype clearance, the brake disks was to be subjected to field trial. 6. The inspecting authority of the railways was to make audit checks of the manufacture procedure to ensure that the item offered for inspection is manufactured strictly as per the Internal Quality Assurance System and the inspection authority was to see from the records of Internal Quality Assurance that the raw material used for the manufacture of brake disks is as per the specification laid down. 7. The brake disks are subjected to field trials on minimum 18 coaches (preferably one rake) for a minimum of nine months or 1,00,000 km, whichever is earlier. 7. The brake disks are subjected to field trials on minimum 18 coaches (preferably one rake) for a minimum of nine months or 1,00,000 km, whichever is earlier. Only after satisfactory performance of the brake disks in field trials, the disks offered may be considered for regular service in the Indian Railways. As per the Quality Assurance Plan Revision 2 (QAP 2) effective from 5 th September, 2022 the brake plate casting was required to be outsourced from Kovis, Slovenia. 8. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in November, 2024 mentioning that the firm has not sourced the item from M/s. Kovis, Slovenia as mentioned in the approved Quality Assurance Plan. The petitioner was advised to explain why penal action should not be initiated for not following the approved QAP for sourcing of raw material for manufacture and supply of standardised brake disks for LHB coaches. 9. A detailed reply was given by the petitioners mentioning that being inspired by the initiative taken by the Hon’ble Prime Minister to encourage the Make in India Policy, the petitioner company has started producing finished product from the raw materials in India itself. 10. It was mentioned that the quality of the products made in India was tested by the Kovis team of Slovenia and training was provided to the Indian team to run the foundry and produce break disks. The Kovis team of Slovenia verified the process and quality of the products. The foundry at India meets the standard of the foundry of Kovis, at Slovenia. On successful production of the break disks in India, the company stopped importing the item from Slovenia. 11. The petitioners assert that the petitioner company is a joint venture of the Kovis company of Slovenia. The company of Slovenia is the technological partner of the petitioners and the products of the petitioners are manufactured in India with the technological expertise of the company at Slovenia. The items in India are manufactured upon Transfer of Technology from Slovenia with approval from the company at Slovenia. 12. The reply of the petitioners was not found satisfactory and the authority took penal steps against the petitioners by downgrading the petitioners from the ‘list of approved vendors’ to the ‘list of RDSO vendors for development order’. 13. The items in India are manufactured upon Transfer of Technology from Slovenia with approval from the company at Slovenia. 12. The reply of the petitioners was not found satisfactory and the authority took penal steps against the petitioners by downgrading the petitioners from the ‘list of approved vendors’ to the ‘list of RDSO vendors for development order’. 13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners stresses upon the fact that, there is no compromise with regard to the quality of the item supplied by the petitioners. The respondents have approved and accepted the items produced by the petitioners in India and, accordingly, the downgrading is bad in law. 14. It has been contended that the appellate authority failed to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioners in its true and proper perspective. All issues raised in the appeal were not properly considered by the appellate authority. 15. Prayer has been made to set aside the order of downgrading and revert the petitioners back to the original list. 16. In support of their submission the petitioners rely on the judgment delivered by the High Court of Bombay in APAR Industries Limited vs. Union of India, through the Ministry of Railways & Ors. reported in (2023) SCC Online Bom 350 wherein the Hon’ble Court was deciding an issue where an order of delisting from the list of approved vendors by the Railways was under challenge. The Court held that the mere fact that a person obtained the raw materials from another vendor does not inevitably lead to a factual conclusion that there has been a variation in the quality standards. 17. The Court observed that the railways never rejected the items manufactured by the appellant and on the contrary the supplies were accepted. According to the Court, the penalty of de-listing from the ‘list of approved vendors’ was disproportionate to the cause for that order. 18. Learned advocate representing the respondents strenuously opposes the submissions and prayers of the petitioners. Affidavit in opposition has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been mentioned that as per approved QAP 2 there is no indication of casting of brake disks in-house. The brake plate casting is to be procured from Kovis, Slovenia. The approved QAP clearly mentions that the casting is to be outsourced from Kovis, Slovenia. Affidavit in opposition has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been mentioned that as per approved QAP 2 there is no indication of casting of brake disks in-house. The brake plate casting is to be procured from Kovis, Slovenia. The approved QAP clearly mentions that the casting is to be outsourced from Kovis, Slovenia. There were other items which could have been manufactured in-house, but the brake disk casting has been approved from Kovis, Slovenia. 19. The company being aware of the requirement of outsourcing the item from Slovenia applied before the respondent authority for approval of the in-house manufacture of brake disks. In the approved QAP 3 the respondent authority permitted supply of the item manufactured in India. The authority inspected and found that the item supplied by the petitioners manufactured in India met the required standards, accordingly, clearance was given to the petitioners in QAP 3. 20. No clearance was given to the petitioners in QAP 2 because the item was not sourced from the approved vendor. QAP 3 was made effective from 22 nd May, 2024. The item supplied by the petitioners prior to coming into effect of QAP 3 should have been as per the approved requirement. The petitioners failed to provide the item in terms of the contract issued for which the respondents invoked the penal clause and imposed penalty upon the petitioners. 21. It has been pointed out that in QAP 3, for approval of a new product or at the time of design change or localisation of an existing design, certain tests are conducted by the authority. Only after satisfactory performance in the test, the item offered is considered for regular service in the Indian Railways. There was no provision for localisation or in-house manufacture of brake disks in QAP 2. 22. As per the tender document penal action can be taken against the vendor for major non-compliance of the approved QAP. As supplying localised materials is a major non-compliance, accordingly, the penalty for downgrading the petitioners has been imposed. 23. It has been submitted that the appellate authority took into consideration the issues raised by the petitioners and thereafter passed order rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners. The penalty was primarily imposed because of non-compliance of QAP 2 provision and the supplies were made in deviation of the duly approved QAP. 23. It has been submitted that the appellate authority took into consideration the issues raised by the petitioners and thereafter passed order rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners. The penalty was primarily imposed because of non-compliance of QAP 2 provision and the supplies were made in deviation of the duly approved QAP. For the purpose of maintaining the sanctity and enforceability of the QAP, the authority had to impose the penalty upon the petitioners. The penalty that has been imposed is in accordance with the prescribed regulatory provisions. Prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petitions. 24. I have heard and considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties. 25. The issue to be decided in the instant writ petition is whether the penalty imposed upon the petitioners for not adhering to QAP 2 is proper or not. 26. The fact that the order of penalty was preceded by a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing was given, is not in dispute. The order of penalty was an appealable one and the appeal preferred by the petitioners stood dismissed by the appellate authority. 27. The petitioners stress on the fact that the company at Slovenia is a sister-concern of the petitioner company in India. The petitioner no. 1 claims to be a joint venture of Kovis, Slovenia under the Transfer of Technology arrangement. The petitioner company is a 50% shareholder of the company at Slovenia. The company in India functions upon Transfer of Technology from its partner in Slovenia. 28. The item manufactured in Slovenia and that in India are absolutely similar. The brake disk manufactured by Kovis, Slovenia approved under QAP 1 and 2 and the brake disk (ring) manufactured in India under QAP 3, in view of the Make-in-India policy of the Government of India, is indistinguishable in terms of quality, specifications and characteristics. 29. The petitioners admit that the facility for manufacturing brake disk casting in the petitioner’s Jabalpur foundry in India was made ready in or about 2023 strictly in terms and as per the Transfer of Technology arrangement with the company at Slovenia. The petitioners invested huge sum of money for setting up the foundry in India. 30. There is no denial of the fact that as per QAP 2 the petitioners were bound to provide items strictly in accordance with the approved QAP. The petitioners invested huge sum of money for setting up the foundry in India. 30. There is no denial of the fact that as per QAP 2 the petitioners were bound to provide items strictly in accordance with the approved QAP. The petitioners have admitted that they have not supplied items as per the approved QAP. Whether the item supplied by the petitioners was identical to the approved QAP or not, is not required to be ascertained. 31. The respondent authority approved a particular vendor for supplying materials to the Railways. Though the petitioners claim that the materials supplied from India were at par with the materials sourced from Slovenia, but the authority could not have taken the submission or the claim of the petitioners at face value. The respondents have a prescribed operating procedure and they are bound to follow the same. It is absolutely not possible for the respondent authority to keep on verifying whether the material supplied by a vendor is in accordance with the approved standard or not. 32. Prior to using a localised item, the petitioners ought to have obtained approval from the authority. Without the authority’s approval the petitioners ought not to have supplied the item. The petitioners have unequivocally admitted that they did not supply the item as per the approved QAP. Once the petitioners accept the fact of deviating and supplying item contrary to the approved QAP, the natural corollary will be imposition of penalty. The respondents have invoked the penalty clause and imposed penalty upon the petitioners by downgrading it from the approved list of vendors. 33. It may have been that the quality of the item supplied by the petitioners is at par with the QAP approved by the authority but the same is always subject to further checks, rigorous time consuming inspections and scrutiny. The petitioners cannot thrust upon the authority any product not approved by the authority. 34. The item supplied by the petitioners is used by the Indian Railways which runs throughout the country. Any item used by the authority has to be of a particular approved standard. A minor alteration in the specified product may have far reaching consequences. There is no reason for the authority to accept an unapproved product irrespective of the fact whether the said product is identical or similar to the approved one. 35. Any item used by the authority has to be of a particular approved standard. A minor alteration in the specified product may have far reaching consequences. There is no reason for the authority to accept an unapproved product irrespective of the fact whether the said product is identical or similar to the approved one. 35. In a huge country like India there may be several types of suppliers. All the suppliers and contractors may not be honest. On the grab of supplying a product outsourced from abroad, local materials may be used. Pricing of a product may vary if the same is sourced from outside the country. Only after making the necessary evaluations and calculations, the authority approves a particular item. The supplier would be bound to supply the item as per the approval or ought to have obtained prior permission to supply any other product other than the approved one. The same has not been done in the instant case. 36. It is the policy of the authority whether or not to approve a particular item/ product. Once the authority approves a specified product/item, the supplier would be liable to deliver the same strictly in terms of the specification and not otherwise. Supply of any item not as per the approval would amount to violation of the terms and conditions of the contract liable to be dealt with in accordance with the contract conditions. The respondents have done so. 37. If the claim of the petitioners to direct the authority not to impose penalty is accepted, then the same may lead to a very uncertain situation. There may be several other suppliers who may start supplying products which may not be as per the approved specification but similar to the approved one. In that case, each of such supplier may come up with a prayer for directing the authority to accept their product even though the same is not as per the approved specification. The very purpose of having an approved specification will be frustrated if such prayer is accepted. Chances of nepotism also cannot be ruled out in such a situation. Safety and security issues of the passengers may also crop up. To set all doubts at rest, the authority ought to act strictly in terms of the contract and not otherwise or else there will be no end to legal complications. 38. Chances of nepotism also cannot be ruled out in such a situation. Safety and security issues of the passengers may also crop up. To set all doubts at rest, the authority ought to act strictly in terms of the contract and not otherwise or else there will be no end to legal complications. 38. In APAR Industries (supra) the Court took note of the fact that the prohibition against job work was introduced later on and the RDSO specifications, in force prior to that date, did not contend such a prohibition. The Court was of the opinion that the prohibition could not have applied retrospectively. In the instant case, approved QAP was already in place when the materials were supplied by the petitioners. The petitioners ought to have acted strictly in terms of the approved QAP and not otherwise. 39. The Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned action of the authority is in terms of the approved QAP 2 and does not call for any interference. 40. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the authority. 41. The writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. 42. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties or their advocates on record expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.