Back
2018 Supreme(SC) 130
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
Swaraj Abhiyan & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 720 of 2016
With
T.S. Singhdeo & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 753 of 2016
With
Rakesh Kumar Choubey – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 973 of 2016
Decided On : 13-02-2018
IMPORTANT POINT
Caution against interference with decisions of the Executive without there being clear issue of genuine public interest is not a jurisdictional bar on Supreme Court. However, petition 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.
Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Allegation of petition having been filed for political gains – Caution against interference with decisions of the Executive without there being clear issue of genuine public interest – Not a jurisdictional bar on Supreme Court – However, petition 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 – The same can be challenged at appropriate forum by the aggrieved party. (Para 17)
1981 (Supp) SCC 87; (1992) 4 SCC 305; (2006) 6 SCC 613; (2004) 3 SCC 349; (2010) 4 SCC 513; (2013) 2 SCC 398; (2016) 6 SCC 82; (2016) 8 SCC 253 – Cited
(b) Constitution of India – Article 32 – PIL – Augusta helicopter purchase – Allegations of corruption and kick-back – State within its powers to make a choice of helicopter – No evidence that it could be purchased for lesser price – No clear evidence of loss to exchequer by commission payment – CAG report not attributing any extraneous consideration in the deal – No material to prima facie hold Chief Minister’s son as beneficiary – No interference warranted. (Para 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
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.
Finding of the Court:
No ground to interfere.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
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 26th 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.
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 2nd 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 19th 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 Eurocop
