Constitution of India:
Art. 32 – Public Interest Litigation – Writ petition seeking direction for investigation into the alleged anomalies/irregularities in the purchase of helicopter by the State of Chhattisgarh and also into the alleged bank accounts in British Virgin Islands (UK) linked with the son of Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh – Allegation that Chhattisgarh Government purchased helicopter by floating a sham tender, paid excess money and in the process caused loss of Rs. 65 lakhs to exchequer in the procurement of the helicopter – Interference with – Held: Not called for – State Government was entitled to make a choice to purchase the Helicopter – Nothing on record to show that the Helicopter could have been procured for lesser price – No person claiming to give a better deal has come forward – Thus, in absence of clear evidence that loss was caused to public exchequer by way of commission payment to the Company which was only a route to send the payment to the son of the Chief Minister, interference by this Court not called for – Further, in the tripartite agreement CAG report did not attribute any extraneous consideration in the deal – Also there is no material to prima facie hold that beneficiary of the transaction was Chief Minister’s son. Art. 32 – Public interest litigation – Interference by court – When – Held: Court is cautioned against interference with decisions of the Executive without there being clear issue of genuine public interest – However, they do not create a jurisdictional bar, if conscience of the Court is pricked in a given case – Petition u/Art. 32, without clear element of public interest, cannot be entertained at the instance of a political rival merely on account of an alleged procedural irregularity in the decision making which can be challenged at appropriate forum by the aggrieved party. Dismissing the Writ Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Son of the Chief Minister is not personally a party. Disclosure in Panama Papers is a matter which is still under investigation by Multi Agency Group constituted by the Government of India on 4th April, 2016 which is to give its report to the Special Investigating Team constituted by this Court vide order dated 4th July, 2011 in Writ Petition (Civil)No. 176 of 2009. [Para 13] [1002-D-E]
1.2 On merits, as depicted in the comparative statement dated 19 th December, 2006 signed by the Senior Helicopter Engineer and Chief Pilot (H), on comparison of A-109 Power, B247 and EC-135 T1, parameters of Delivery Schedule, Number of Aircrafts in India, Maintenance facility in India, Spares Inventory in India, Technical trained manpower, Engine Power, Engine Life,Operation, Maintenance and customer support and Operation at Night were in favour of A-109 Power. Letter dated 2nd January,2007 addressed to the Director, Aviation, Government of Chhattisgarh shows that A Company itself was not in a position to deliver the light twin engine helicopter before January, 2010. However, it stated that the same could be secured in August/September, 2007 from the distributors SO Company, at a total amount of US $ 6,315,000. Prior to this, on 29th December, 2016, recommendation was made by the Senior Engineer (H) that A109 was suitable for operation for State Government VIP operations. Thus, for quick delivery, the State negotiated with SO Company. Final payment made is of 6,570,000 (Six million five hundred seventy thousand). The said agreement shows that A Company entered into agreement dated 24 th May, 2006 for sale of Helicopter Model A-109 to S Company. The sale was assigned by the said S Company to SO Company and SO Company had made certain advance payments to A Company. SO Company had claimed its holding charges. A Company itself made it clear that the price was US $ 6 Million if delivery time was more. For earlier delivery, pre-sold Helicopter could be purchased from its distributor at a higher price. Thus, it cannot be said that there was an excess payment for extraneous reason. Comparison with the price at which Jharkhand proposed to purchase helicopter has no relevance as that was a deal in the year 2005 at which price the helicopter was not available at the relevant time. Price in Jharkhand deal was US $ 5.591 million and the said transaction is dated 5th August, 2006. Obviously, it is difficult to accept the contention that real value in the present transaction was US $
5.246 million on 26.10.2017 when the company itself vide letter dated 13.03.2007 showed inability for early disposal and stated that the price was US $ 6.0 million if delivery period was more than two years. [Para 14] [1002-E-H; 1003-A-E]
1.3 It cannot be disputed that the State Government was entitled to make a choice to purchase the Helicopter in question. There is nothing on record to show that the Helicopter could have been procured for lesser price. No person claiming to give a better deal has come forward. Thus, in absence of clear evidence that loss was caused to public exchequer by way of commission payment to SO Company which was only a route to send the payment to the son of the Chief Minister, interference by this Court is not called for. There is a tripartite agreement dated 26th October, 2007, between SO Company, the State of Chhatisgarh and A Company to the effect that SO Company was entitled to retain payment made by it to A Company to the extent of US $ 100,000 (As per Article 4.1.A of Agreement dated 24th May, 2006 read with Agreement dated 13th November, 2006 in favour of SO Company and US $ 1,473, 800 under Article 4.1.B of the Contract. The CAG report does not attribute any extraneous consideration in the deal. [Para 15] [1003-F-H; 1004-A]
1.4 There is no material to prima facie hold that beneficiary of transaction was AS. It is not necessary to go into the allegation of mere procedural irregularities. No case is made out for interference by this Court for issuing a direction as sought in absence of allegation of extraneous consideration being substantiated. [Para 16] [1004-B]
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) Supp SCC 87; Janata Dal v H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 : [1992] 1 Suppl. SCR 226; Rajiv Ranjan Singh ‘Lalan’ (VIII) v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 613 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 742; Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC 349 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 716; Kunga Nima Lepcha v. State of Sikkim (2010) 4 SCC
513 : [2010] 3 SCR 787; Kishore Samrite v State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 398:[2012] 9 SCR 733;
Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj v. T.N. Legislative Assembly (2016) 6 SCC 82 : [2016] 6 SCR 611; Santosh Singh versus Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 253 : [2016] 5 SCR 761 – referred to.
1.5 The Court are cautioned against interference with decisions of the Executive without there being clear issue of genuine public interest. However, they do not create a jurisdictional bar, if conscience of the Court is pricked in a given case. A petition under Article 32, without clear element of public interest, cannot be entertained at the instance of a political rival merely on account of an alleged procedural irregularity in the decision making which can be challenged at appropriate forum by the aggrieved party. There is no ground to grant prayer as sought in the petitions. [Para 17] [1004-D-F]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.