A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

991

SWARAJ ABHIYAN AND ANR.

v.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 720 of 2016)

FEBRUARY 13, 2018

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]

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.

[2018] 2 S.C.R. 991

991

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.

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 4

th

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, B-

247 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

2

nd

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 29

th

December, 2016,

recommendation was made by the Senior Engineer (H) that A-

109 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

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

993

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 5

th

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 26

th

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 24

th

May, 2006

read with Agreement dated 13

th

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

SWARAJ ABHIYAN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.

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]

Case Law Reference

(1981) Supp. SCC 87 referred to Para 16

[1992] 1 Suppl. SCR 226 referred to Para 16

[2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 742 referred to Para 16

[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 716 referred to Para 16

[2010] 3 SCR 787 referred to Para 16

[2012] 9 SCR 733 referred to Para 16

[2016] 6 SCR 611 referred to Para 16

[2016] 5 SCR 761 referred to Para 16

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.

720 of 2016

Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.

WITH

W. P. (C) NO. 753 and 973 of 2016

Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv., Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Neha Rathi,

Sudip Shrivastava, Devesh Agnihotri, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar and

Ms. Rahat Sharma, Adv., for the petitioners.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

995

Mahesh Jethmalani, V. Mohana, Sr. Advs., Tushar Mehta and

Ms. Pinky Anand, ASGs, Apoorv Kurup, A. C. Boxipatro, Ms. Sakshi

Kakkar, Ravi Sharma, Rajat Nair, Kanu Aggrawala, Mukul Singh, Balender

Shekar, Hemant Arya and B. V. Balram Das, Advs., for the respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order will dispose of

Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.720, 753 and 973 of 2016. All the three writ

petitions involve the same issue. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 720 of 2016

has been filed by Swaraj Abhiyan, a political party along with petitioner

No. 2 who is said to be an office bearer of a N.G.O., seeking direction

for investigation into the purchase of A-109 power E-helicopter by the

State of Chhatisgarh and also into the alleged bank accounts in British

Virgin Islands (UK) linked with the son of Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh.

The said son of the Chief Minister is not a party to the petition.

2. The plea set out in the petition is that the State of Chhattisgarh

entered into an agreement dated 26

th

October, 2017 with Sharp Ocean

Investments Limited and acquired a helicopter without following the due

process and caused loss to the government. It is also alleged that an

account was opened by the son of the Chief Minister 6 months after the

bulk payment was made by the Government for the said purchase. The

database compiled by the International Consortium of Investigative

Journalists (ICIJ) shows Abhishak Singh as the shareholder of Quest

Heights Limited (incorporated in British Virgin Islands on 3.7.2008) and

Sharecorp Limited. The CAG report stated that loss of Rs.65 lakhs was

caused to the exchequer in the procurement of the helicopter.

3. Writ Petition (Civil) No.753 of 2016 has been filed jointly by the

leader of the opposition of the Chhattisgarh Assembly and a publisher of

a journal seeking direction to conduct enquiry into the helicopter purchase

deals of the States of Chhattisgarh, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan

and Jharkhand.

4. Writ Petition (Civil) No.973 of 2016 has been filed by Mr. Rakesh

Kumar Choubey claiming to be a social activist seeking direction to

conduct an enquiry into the British Virgin Island Companies of Abhishak

Singh and the links of these companies in receiving kickbacks from Sharp

Ocean Investments, OSS Air Management Pvt. Ltd. and Agusta

Westland and also enquiry into the procurement of the helicopter by the

State of Chhattisgarh.

SWARAJ ABHIYAN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.

5. A copy of the first petition was directed to be served on the

Central Agency so that the Union of India could put in appearance. As

recorded in order dated 2

nd

December, 2016, learned Attorney General

raised an objection that the issue was of political nature in the guise of a

public interest litigation to settle political scores. Again, vide order dated

19

th

April, 2017, this Court observed that the said objection of the Attorney

General was required to be heard first.

6. However, since on a later date, this Court was of the view

that the objection of the Attorney General did not bar the jurisdiction of

this Court and the matter may be required to be considered on merits,

the State of Chhattisgarh filed counter affidavit, produced the original

files and also filed photocopies of the same. A rejoinder affidavit has

also been filed.

7. We have heard Shri Prashant Bhushan appearing for the

petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 720 and 753 of 2016, Shri Sanjay

R. Hegde, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition

(Civil) No. 973 of 2016, Shri Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Advocate for

the State of Chhattisgarh, Shri Tushar Mehta, ASG and Ms. Pinky Anand,

ASG for the Union of India.

8. We have perused the record and considered the submission

of the petitioners that the helicopter was purchased by Chhattisgarh

Government by floating a sham tender and that in the process loss was

caused to the public exchequer. We have also considered the further

contention that Abhishak Singh, son of Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh

could be the beneficiary in the transaction.

9. Shri Jethmalani explained the factual position with reference

to the record. He submitted that in the year 2002, the State of Chhattisgarh

had purchased a Eurocopter (EC135) which crashed on 14

th

July, 2007

and became unusable. Before the sad crash, on 19

th

December, 2006,

the Chief Pilot and Quality Control Manager of the Aviation Department

of the State recommended purchase of a “twin engine Helicopter” which

can carry at least four passengers with maximum fuel load across the

State without refueling mid-way and still having enough power margin,

efficient performance and least maintenance cost. This was to meet the

security concerns of the State affected by extremist’s violence. This

proposal was also on account of high cost of maintenance of the existing

helicopter. The State, on 6

th

January, 2007, constituted a three-member

Committee comprising the Additional Chief Secretary (Aviation), the

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

997

Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister and the Principal Secretary

(Finance) to take an informed decision in the matter. The Committee, on

12

th

January, 2007, recommended purchase of Agusta A-109 Power

helicopter. Correspondence was exchanged between the State and the

Agusta. The Agusta, vide letter dated 27

th

January, 2007, informed that

the company could give delivery of A-109 Power helicopter by middle

of 2009. The price will be in the region of US $ 6.0 million. However, if

the State wanted early delivery, the company had already pre-sold some

helicopters to their dealers of the region M/s. Sharp Ocean Investments

Limited, Hong Kong who could be contacted. The service provider of

the company in India was Mr. V. Krishnan, who could assist in this

regard.

10. Accordingly, a delegation of the State went to Hong Kong

and negotiated with M/s. Sharp Ocean Investments Limited, Hong Kong

and gave its report on 15

th

February, 2007 to the effect that the helicopter

could be supplied on negotiated terms for US $ 6 million in six months.

Thereafter, a note was put up on 4

th

April, 2007 by the Director of Aviation

that efforts should be first made to acquire the helicopter at 2005 price

(about Rs.24 crores). Since this proposal could not materialize as vide

letter dated 5.4.2007, the OSS Air Management Pvt. Ltd. that price of

US $ 6 million + services was final price, global tender was published.

Three proposals were received and the High Level Committee after

evaluation on 7

th

July, 2007, recommended acceptance of tender submitted

by M/s. Sharp Ocean Investments Limited, subject to delivery being

made by December, 2007. Accordingly a decision was taken and

purchase order was placed and thereafter delivery was effected.

Payments were made as follows:

“(a) USD 1,324,000 to Sharp Ocean (i)n consideration of

procuring the sale of the Helicopter by Agusta to the

Purchaser and to assign, transfer and set over to the

Purchaser, Sharp’s rights under the Sale Contract.

(b) USD 1,573,800 to Sharp Ocean as reimbursement of the

monies “that Sharp has already paid ….. as part

consideration towards the purchaser of the Helicopter to

Agusta in accordance with the Sale Contract.

(c) USD 3,672,200 to Agusta as the balance amount at the

time of the scheduled acceptance of the helicopter.”

SWARAJ ABHIYAN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.

11. In support of the above, following documents have been

referred to :

Document dated 19

th

December, 2006

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF LIGHT TWIN ENGINE

HELICOPTER

Document dated 29

th

December, 2006

“Presently only three Helicopter are leading in the market in

the light twin engine category which can be utilized by State Govt.

for VIP operation.

1. Agusta A 109

2. EC-135

3. Bell-427

Out of these three Helicopters EC-135 is already being used

by Govt. of Chhattisgarh has power limitation and excessive

maintenance cost while operating in Indian environmental

S.

No.

PARAMETER UNITS A-109

POWER

B-427EC-135

TI

1. Delivery

Schedule

Months 18-24 12-18 18-24

2. No.of Aircraft

in India

04 Nil 01

3. Maintenance

facility in India

Available Nil Nil

4. Spares

Inventory in

India

Held Not heldNot held

5. Technical

trained

manpower

Yes No Very

less

6. Engine Power SHP 900 800 826

7. Engine LifeHRS 3500 3000 3000

8. Operation,

Maintenance

and customer

support

Available Not

available

Not

available

9. Operation at

Night

Yes No Yes

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

999

conditions. Bell 427 also has certain limitations for the kind of

operation required for our State Govt. Bell 427 is a VFR category

Helicopter, can operate only in day light and cannot fly after sunset.

Therefore, considering suitability of Helicopter for VIP

operation for State Govt. and technical data performance Agusta

A-109 is most suitable for State Govt. VIP operation.

Technical information comparison statement is submitted for

you kind reference please.

Sd/-

29.12.06

Gauri Shanker Godara

Sr. Engineer (Helicopter)”

Document dated 2

nd

January, 2007

“… … …As you are aware, the world helicopter market is

extremely tight and manufacturers including Agusta are not

in a position to deliver a light twin engine helicopter before

January, 2010. However, we, as Service Providers for Agusta

in India are in a position to secure the delivery of a A-109

Power helicopter in 6 seat VIP Elite configuration for a

confirmed delivery in August/September 2007 itself from their

distributors M/s. Sharp Ocean Investments Limited, Hong

Kong who have pre-bought this machine. The purchase price

will be as follows:

Amount payable to Agusta Westland, Italy US$ 3,673,000

Amount payable to M/s. Sharp Ocean

Investment Ltd., Hong Kong US$ 2,642,000

Total amount payable US$ 6,315,000

Payment Schedule:

Down payment of US $ 2,642,000 to M/s. Sharp Ocean

Investments Limited, Hong Kong at the time of order

placement / contract signature on or before 31

st

January,

2007. The balance amount of US $ 3,673,000 will be payable

to Agusta S.p.A., Italy in August 2007 at the time of

“acceptance” of the helicopter by the Government of

Chhattisgarh in Milan, Italy.

SWARAJ ABHIYAN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.

Invoice Price

Payable to manufacturer – Agusta Westland, Italy towards:

Price of the Helicopter US $ 5,131,000

Services

*

US $ 115,000

US $ 5,246,000

Payable to M/s. Sharp Ocean Investments

Ltd Hong Kong towards:

Pre-booking cost US $ 1,069,000

Total US $ 6,315,000

===========

* includes dis-assembly; packing and preservation; freight;

insurance; re-assembly and test flight in India prior to

handing-over

The helicopter will be invoiced and delivered by Agusta

Westland directly to the Government of Chhattisgarh. The

confirmed order with down payment will have to be released

on or before 31

st

January, 2007.”

Document dated 13

th

March, 2007

“Agusta Westland A Finmeccanica Company

The Director Aviation

Government of Chhattisgarh

RAIPUR

India

Dear Sir:

We thank you very much for the kind courtesies extended to

our Service Providers representative in India Mr. V. Krishnan

when he called on you on 22

nd

December, 2006 to make a

presentation on the suitability of our helicopters the AW 139

and the A 109 Power for your requirements.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1001

In this regard, we are pleased to confirm the following

information in response to your e-mail today:

(a) The earliest delivery we can offer from the Company

for the A109 Power is today middle 2009.

(b) The ROM price for the Elite configuration you are

looking for will be in the region of US $ 6.0 Million.

(c) The initial deposit at the time of booking will be US $

100,000. The down payment will be equivalent to 30%

payable within 60 (sixty) days from the date of contract

signature or to the import license obtaining whichever

come first. Final payment of 70% will be at the time of

“acceptance” of helicopter at Milan.

If you are looking for an early delivery, please note that we

have pre-sold some helicopters to our dealers for your region

M/s. Sharp Ocean Investments Limited, 1402, One Duddell

Street, Central, Hong Kong who will be in a position to offer

you earlier deliveries of the helicopters booked by them on

behalf of their customers in India. Our Service providers

representative in India Mr. V. Krishnan (Mob. + 91 98183

55544) can assist you in this regard.

Thanking you

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

Umberto Fontanella

Head of Region

Agusta Westland”

Report of the CAG

“Having failed to sign the contract by the due date, the

Government floated (May 2007) a global tender for purchase

of Agusta A 109 Power helicopter. Out of the five bids

received, the Cabinet approved (August 2007) the bid of the

same Hong-Kong based dealer, who had offered to supply

the helicopter earlier, and signed (October 2007) the

agreement for US $ 65.70 lakh (Rs.25.96 crore as per

prevailing exchange rates). The supply of helicopter was

SWARAJ ABHIYAN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.

received in December 2007 and payment of Rs.25.96 crore

was made. Thus, due to avoidable delay in taking decision

on signing the contract by due date for purchase of new

helicopter at the first instance, the Government had to

purchase the same helicopter model from the same dealer at

an extra cost of Rs.65 lakh (Rs.25.96 crore – Rs.25.31 crore)

as detailed in Appendix-2.1”

12. The objection on behalf of the petitioners is that in all the three

offers, it was the same person who negotiated. Other helicopters were

not considered. Excess price was paid to benefit the son of the Chief

Minister. Question is whether the allegations are substantiated. Even

though the submission initially appeared to require consideration on

account of which the State was directed to produce the record and

explain the position after due consideration, we find it difficult to accept

the same.

13. 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 4

th

April, 2016

which is to give its report to the Special Investigating Team constituted

by this Court vide order dated 4

th

July, 2011 in Writ Petition (Civil)No.

176 of 2009

1

.

14. 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, B-247 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 2

nd

January, 2007 addressed to the Director, Aviation,

Government of Chhattisgarh shows that Agusta 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 M/s. Sharp Ocean Investments Limited, Hong Kong at a

total amount of US $ 6,315,000. Prior to this, on 29

th

December, 2016,

recommendation was made by the Senior Engineer (H) that Agusta A-

109 was suitable for operation for State Government VIP operations.

1

This issue has been dealt with in the order of this Court dated 9th October, 2017 in

W.P. No.65 of 2016

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1003

Thus, for quick delivery, the State negotiated with M/s. Sharp Ocean

Investments Limited. Final payment made is of 6,570,000 (Six million

five hundred seventy thousand). Contention that the price of the

Helicopter was US $ 5,246,000 as shown by the invoice of the Agusta

Westland dated 30

th

October, 2007 and thus, the remaining amount was

by way of commission cannot be accepted in view of contents of the

Agreement dated 9

th

October, 2007 and the correspondence. The said

agreement shows that Agusta had entered into agreement dated 24

th

May, 2006 for sale of Agusta Helicopter Model A-109 to Serum Institute

of India Limited. The sale was assigned by the said Serum to Sharp and

Sharp had made certain advance payments to Agusta. Sharp had claimed

its holding charges. Agusta 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 as

noted earlier. Price in Jharkhand deal was US $ 5.591 million and the

said transaction is dated 5

th

August, 2006. Obviously, it is difficult to

accept the contention that real value in the present transaction was US

$ 5.246 million on 26

th

October, 2017 when the company itself vide letter

dated 13

th

March, 2007 showed inability for early disposal and stated

that the price was US $ 6.0 million if delivery period was more than two

years.

15. 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 Sharp Ocean Investments

Limited 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 26

th

October, 2007, between Sharp Ocean

Investments Limited, the State of Chhatisgarh and Agusta to the effect

that Sharp Ocean Investments Limited was entitled to retain payment

made by it to Agusta to the extent of US $ 100,000 (As per Article 4.1.A

of Agreement dated 24

th

May, 2006 read with Agreement dated 13

th

November, 2006 in favour of Sharp Ocean Investments Limited) and

SWARAJ ABHIYAN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.

US $ 1,473, 800 under Article 4.1.B of the Contract. The CAG report

does not attribute any extraneous consideration in the deal.

16. There is no material to prima facie hold that beneficiary of

transaction was Abhishak Singh. We do not consider it necessary to go

into the allegation of mere procedural irregularities. We broadly find that

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.

17. Having considered the merits, we need not go into the objection

raised on behalf of the respondents that the petition was for political

gains and should not be looked into in view of S.P. Gupta versus Union

of India

2

, Janata Dal versus H.S. Chowdhary

3

, Rajiv Ranjan Singh

‘Lalan’ (VIII) versus Union of India

4

, Ashok Kumar Pandey versus

State of West Bengal

5

, Kunga Nima Lepcha versus State of Sikkim

6

,

Kishore Samrite versus State of U.P.

7

, Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj

versus T.N. Legislative Assembly

8

andSantosh Singh versus Union

of India

9

. There is no doubt about the legal position enunciated in the

said decisions cautioning the Court 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.

Accordingly, we do not find any ground to grant prayer as sought

in the petitions which hereby stand dismissed. No costs.

Nidhi Jain Petitions dismissed.

2

1981 (Supp) SCC 87

3

(1992) 4 SCC 305

4

(2006) 6 SCC 613

5

(2004) 3 SCC 349

6

(2010) 4 SCC 513

7

(2013) 2 SCC 398

8

(2016) 6 SCC 82

9

(2016) 8 SCC 253