Corrigendum / Clarification

On 28 July, 2025, we had published an article titled, “How a Duopoly Engineered by IR created havoc in Traction Transformer Repairs—Day light robbery of public exchequer”. As evident from the title itself, the article had highlighted how a two-decade-old policy of Indian Railways which was restrictive in nature and required urgent review.

We derive immense satisfaction that the Railway Board has since reviewed the said policy and issued a revised version on 22.09.2025, opening participation to all prospective bidders from Central and State PSUs, including Metro Railways. Further, RDSO has issued comprehensive guidelines for repair and periodical overhaul (POH) of transformers. The main objective of our article thus stands achieved.

However, in that process, based on CEDE/SECR’s official letter dated 11.07.2025, we had reported that a transformer repaired by M/s Vishwas Power Engineering Services, Nagpur at a cost of ₹6.0 crore had failed within six months, causing disruption in train services. Our reporting was entirely based on the contents of the said official correspondence received through reliable sources.

Subsequently, M/s Vishwas Power Engineering Services, Nagpur contacted us telephonically and through legal notices, pointing out that our report had reflected only one side of the story and that the facts were not independently verified by us. We had assured them that their version would be published if shared with us.

The firm has since conveyed that they were not responsible for the malfunction of the transformer and that, upon learning of the issue, they immediately attended to and rectified the fault. They have further stated that they obtained the contract strictly as per the tender’s eligibility conditions and did not receive any undue favour.

It needs to be submitted that by publication of report based on official correspondence (ref para #1 above), played key role in subsequent policy rationalization as mentioned in para #2 above by deliberating earlier policy in entirety duly bringing out its implications.

While our original report was based on an official document, we recognise that the matter involves an ongoing dispute between the Railways and the said firm. Considering that the primary policy objective we sought has already been achieved, we wish to clarify that we have no intent to be party to any such dispute or defame anyone. —Editor