Blatant Favouritism Alleged in Carriage Directorate of RDSO—A glaring case of undue favouritism under influence of extraneous consideration

Admin

In a development that raises serious concerns over #transparency and #impartiality within the #RDSO, officials of #Carriage Directorate led by PED/RS has come under sharp scrutiny for allegedly extending deliberate and undue favour to M/s #JWLKovis Kolkata, a firm that had been officially downgraded due to serious quality control violations.

  1. As per records, M/s JWL KOVIS was downgraded from “Approved” to “Developmental” status by #RDSO vide order dated 02.01.2025, following confirmed violations of their approved QAP—namely, the supply of #brake discs using unapproved brake castings.
  2. This decision, rooted in #quality and #safety concerns, was duly contested by the firm through Writ Petition No. 3234/2025 before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court.
  3. Pending Appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e Special DG/VD, the firm sought interim relief to participate in an upcoming tender no. 0329344 due for opening on 14.02.2025.
  4. Hon’ble Court vide order dated 11.02.2025 permitted their participation in that specific tender only. However, in what is being widely perceived as an act of blatant misuse of authority, Mr. #DineshShukla #PED/RS restored the firm’s status as an “Approved Source” on the #UVAM portal without putting any remark limiting it to the specific tender only—as was the actual order of the Court.

This deliberate omission allowed the firm to bypass the downgradation order and secure large-scale supply contracts as an approved source in several other #tenders also despite being disqualified.

Subsequently, the Appellate Authority in his order dated 20.03.2025 after affording due process, upheld the order of downgradation.

Subsequently, Hon’ble Court in order dated 05.05.2025 set aside the Appellate Authority’s order on procedural grounds (lack of oral hearing) and directed to issue fresh order after granting oral hearing.

The Appellate Authority complied with the Court’s directions by issuing a fresh order dated 06.06.2025 after oral hearing and once again affirming the vendor’s downgraded status. Finally, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on 17.06.2025. Thus, the order of downgradation stands affirmed.

Despite the judicial closure, Mr. Dinesh Shukla deliberately didn’t update the vendor’s downgraded status on the UVAM portal allowing M/s JWL KOVIS to continue being listed as an “approved” source. Thus, serial serious omissions committed one after another enabled the #vendor to wrongfully obtain bulk procurement orders from various railway units.

In a separate development, the #RailwayBoard—acting on advice from the Central Vigilance Commission (#CVC)—issued a Show Cause Notice dated 30.04.2025 proposing a two-year ban on the vendor for misrepresentation of local content, wherein the firm claimed 90% local content despite RDSO assertions that vendor is supplying imported casting as per approved QAP. It’s a different matter that such an assertion was completely false, as firm on his own has admitted having supplied local casting.

The vendor challenged the show cause notice issued by the Railway Board through Writ Petition No. 11566/2025, which also stands disposed by the Hon’ble Court on 23.06.2025 with the direction to Railway Board to take the decision after going through the response of the vendor to show cause notice.

The two matters under reference are entirely distinct and unrelated in scope and context. While the action of downgradation was independently initiated and imposed by RDSO as a penal measure, the issuance of a show cause notice for “banning of business” was undertaken separately by the Railway Board. It is pertinent to note that the action taken by RDSO has attained finality in law upon the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 3234/2024 by the Hon’ble Court.

Notwithstanding these serious regulatory, judicial, and policy developments, the firm’s status continues to reflect as “Approved” on the UVAM portal, thereby facilitating continued large-scale procurement in its favour.

The situation reflects a glaring breach of duty, administrative impropriety, and potential abuse of position by the ED/Carriage and Dinesh Shukla, PED/RS, in clear defiance of appellate rulings, court orders, and policy directives. Stakeholders are now demanding an immediate investigation and accountability, as the continued inaction threatens the integrity of the public procurement system and compromises fair competition. Contd.