Jay Bee Industries v. Union Of India And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 26.05.2026 M/s Jay Bee Industries

...Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and Others

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate (Through V.C.) with Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate, Ms. Richa Tayal, Advocate and Mr. Pankaj Katia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Lalit Kumar Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6.

**** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of decision dated 01.11.2025 whereby Chief Engineer, Western Command (Military Engineering Service) cancelled the approval accorded to its product (power distribution transformer). It is further seeking setting aside of decision dated 29.08.2025 whereby Additional Director General, MES, Jammu has banned further use of its products. 2.

The petitioner is a proprietorship concern/MSME operating under the name and style of 'M/s Jay Bee Industries' and engaged in the manufacture of power transformers. It in 2017 as per policy No. 13/2015 was designated as approved supplier of power transformers to Military Engineering Services (for short 'MES'). The approval was renewed from

-2time to time. Last approval was granted vide order dated 30.12.2023. The Chief Engineer, Pathankot Zone vide letter dated 28.11.2024 sought clarification from petitioner regarding failure of transformer installed at Kaluchak, Jammu. Board of Inquiry ordered by Chief Engineer, Pathankot Zone assessed the failure to be due to thunderstorm and lightning. Additional Director General, MES, Jammu vide letter dated 29.08.2025 informed the petitioner that its products have been banned for future use. Chief Engineer, MES, Western Command vide letter dated 01.11.2025 revoked approval granted to its products on the ground of unsatisfactory reports. It filed a spate of representations to the respondents seeking withdrawal of letters dated 29.08.2025 and 01.11.2025.

3.

Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that respondent vide communication dated 13.02.2026 has conceded that present serviceability state of transformer is being sought from ground executives. The respondent has sought report from ground executives. The respondent is likely to pass order on the basis of report of ground executives as well as petitioner's submissions. 4.

Learned counsel representing respondents No.1 to 6 submits that there are many transformers manufactured by petitioner which are defective.

5.

On being pointed out Paragraph 6 of communication dated 13.02.2026, learned counsel representing respondents No.1 to 6 submits that Competent Authority would pass an order with respect to blacklisting of petitioner's firm.

-36.

Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner agrees with the aforesaid arrangement.

7.

In the wake of statement of both sides, the petition stands disposed of. Let the needful be done within eight weeks from today. 8.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 26.05.2026 Prince Chawla Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No