Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 315
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Voluntary Arunachal Senaa – Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 34696 of 2010
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-05-2010 in PIL No. 52/2007 passed by the Gauhati High Court)
Decided On : 20-03-2024
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Ms. Neha Rathi, Adv. Ms. Kajal Giri, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kishore, Adv. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajiv Datta, Sr.Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, adv. Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG (NP) Mr. K M Nataraj, ASG Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr.Adv.(NP) Mrs. Ranjana Narayan, Adv. Mr. T A Khan, Adv. Mrs. Swati Ghirdiyal, Adv. Mr. T S Sabrish, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Goswami, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Mr. Keshav Khandelwal, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR Mr. Kamal Kishore, Adv. Ms. Kajal Giri, Adv.
Courts may direct the examination of complaints by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in public interest litigations involving allegations of faulty contracts.
Headnote:
Public Interest Litigation - Allegations of Faulty Contracts - Examination of Complaints by Comptroller and Auditor General of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged that certain contracts given by the State of Arunachal Pradesh were faulty as they were given to near relatives of the then Chief Minister of the State. The respondent argued that these were wild allegations not approved by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court decided to dispose of the petition and have the complaints examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) in a proceeding framed as a public interest litigation. The Court also noted the filing of an independent writ petition in relation to subsequent contracts and refrained from making any comment on those applications.
Issues: Allegations of faulty contracts, public interest litigation, examination of complaints by CAG, subsequent contracts
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the need to address the allegations of faulty contracts and to ensure a thorough examination of the complaints by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
Final Decision: The present petition and pending applications were disposed of in view of the order passed, and the Court expected an early examination of the allegations by the CAG.
ORDER
SLP(C)No(s). 34696/2010
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s), learned additional solicitor general, learned senior counsel/counsel for the respondent no.1, respondent no.11 and respondent nos.4 to 6.
2. In this proceeding, certain contract given by the State of Arunachal Pradesh have been alleged to be faulty by the petitioner(s) mainly on the ground that these were given to near relative(s) of the then the Chief Minister of the State. On behalf of the respondent(s), it has been emphatically argued that these are all wild allegations and such allegations were not found to be approved by the High Court.
3. We do not want to keep the present petition, which has its genesis in a proceeding framed as a public interest litigation, pending. Let the complaint(s) over which the present petition is founded, be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). This Court would expect an early examination into the allegations, which are made by Mr.Bhushan in the public interest litigation out of which the present proceeding arises. There are several interlocutory applications taken out, in connection with the main public interest litigation, seeking interference of this Court in certain subsequent contracts, which according to Mr.Bhushan suffer from the same set of flaws. But we are apprised by the learned counsel for the parties that an independent writ petition has been filed in relation to such subsequent set of contracts and hence we are not making any comment or observation in relation to these applications.
4. The present petition shall stand disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.
W.P.(Crl.) No. 165/2021
In view of the order passed in SLP(C)No(s). 34696/2010 the present petition is also disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall, stand disposed of.
