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

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

In absence of clear evidence of extraneous consideration or loss to exchequer, and without any substantial public interest, interference by this Court in the procurement decision of the State of Chhattisgarh is not warranted under Article 32; petitions dismissed.

Parties
Petitioner: Swaraj Abhiyan; Petitioner: Petitioner No. 2 (office bearer of an NGO); Petitioner: Leader of the opposition of the Chhattisgarh Assembly; Petitioner: Publisher of a journal; Petitioner: Rakesh Kumar Choubey; Respondent: Union of India; Respondent: State of Chhattisgarh; Respondent: Sharp Ocean Investments Limited, Hong Kong
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Final Disposition
Outcome
petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Public Interest Litigation, Judicial Interference, Executive Decisions, Procurement Irregularities
Constitutional Law Public Interest Litigation Judicial Interference Executive Decisions Procurement Irregularities

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Swaraj Abhiyan

Petitioner

Petitioner No. 2 (office bearer of an NGO)

Petitioner

Leader of the opposition of the Chhattisgarh Assembly

Petitioner

Publisher of a journal

Petitioner

Rakesh Kumar Choubey

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

State of Chhattisgarh

Respondent

Sharp Ocean Investments Limited, Hong Kong

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Final Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the procurement of helicopter by the State of Chhattisgarh involved irregularities warranting judicial investigation
  2. 2 Whether excess payment in purchase of helicopter caused loss to the public exchequer
  3. 3 Whether procedural irregularities or alleged extraneous consideration justify Supreme Court interference under Article 32

Ratio Decidendi

In absence of clear evidence of extraneous consideration or loss to exchequer, and without any substantial public interest, interference by this Court in the procurement decision of the State of Chhattisgarh is not warranted under Article 32; petitions dismissed.

Court Disposition

petitions dismissed

Orders

  • No grounds to grant prayer sought in the petitions; petitions dismissed.