Holding

In the absence of clear evidence of extraneous consideration or loss and lacking a genuine public‑interest issue, the Supreme Court cannot interfere with the executive's procurement decision and dismisses the petitions.

Summary

The petitioners, including the political party Swaraj Abhiyan, filed writ petitions under Article 32 seeking a court‑ordered investigation into the purchase of an Agusta A‑109 Power helicopter by the Government of Chhattisgarh, alleging a sham tender, excess payment of about Rs 65 lakh and that the excess was routed to the Chief Minister’s son. The Court examined the procurement documents, comparative technical statements, the CAG report and the tripartite agreement with Sharp Ocean Investments, and found that the State was entitled to choose the helicopter, that the price paid was justified by the need for early delivery, and that there was no material showing extraneous consideration or that the CM’s son was a beneficiary. The Court also held that the petition did not disclose a clear public‑interest issue and was essentially a political rival’s challenge. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, holding that it could not interfere in the executive’s decision absent prima‑facie evidence of loss or corruption.

Issues considered

The court's jurisdiction under Article 32 to direct an investigation into alleged irregularities in the helicopter procurement.
Whether there is prima facie evidence of loss to the exchequer and benefit to the Chief Minister’s son.
Whether the procurement involved a sham tender or extraneous consideration.
Whether the petition, being a political challenge, can be entertained as a public‑interest litigation.

Subjects

Public Interest LitigationArticle 32Procurement irregularitiesHelicopter purchaseAlleged corruptionExecutive discretionCAG reportPanama PapersPolitical rivalry

Judgment

[2018] 2 S.C.R. 991 991

SWARAJ ABHIYAN AND ANR. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 720 of 2016)
FEBRUARY 13, 2018 B
[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 C
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
D
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 E
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
F
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. G
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.
H
991
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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
E amount of US $ 6,315,000. Prior to this, on 29th 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
F 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
G 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
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 993

price the helicopter was not available at the relevant time. Price A
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
B
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 C
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 D
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. E
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 F
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 : G
[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 H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.

A 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.
B
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
C 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]
D 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
E
[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
F
[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.
G
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
H Ms. Rahat Sharma, Adv., for the petitioners.
SWARAJ ABHIYAN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 995

Mahesh Jethmalani, V. Mohana, Sr. Advs., Tushar Mehta and A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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.
H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
C 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
D (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
E 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
F to the record. He submitted that in the year 2002, the State of Chhattisgarh
had purchased a Eurocopter (EC135) which crashed on 14th July, 2007
and became unusable. Before the sad crash, on 19th December, 2006,
the Chief Pilot and Quality Control Manager of the Aviation Department
of the State recommended purchase of a “twin engine Helicopter” which
G 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 6th January, 2007, constituted a three-member
H Committee comprising the Additional Chief Secretary (Aviation), the
SWARAJ ABHIYAN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 997
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister and the Principal Secretary A
(Finance) to take an informed decision in the matter. The Committee, on
12th January, 2007, recommended purchase of Agusta A-109 Power
helicopter. Correspondence was exchanged between the State and the
Agusta. The Agusta, vide letter dated 27th January, 2007, informed that
the company could give delivery of A-109 Power helicopter by middle
B
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. C
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 15th 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 4th April, 2007 by the Director of Aviation D
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 7th July, 2007, recommended acceptance of tender submitted E
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 F
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 G
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.”
H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.

A 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
B
S. PARAMETER UNITS A-109 B-427 EC-135
No. POWER TI
1. Delivery Months 18-24 12-18 18-24
Schedule
C 2. No.of Aircraft 04 Nil 01
in India
3. Maintenance Available Nil Nil
facility in India
4. Spares Held Not held Not held
Inventory in
India
D
5. Technical Yes No Ver y
trained less
manpower
6. Engine Power SHP 900 800 826
7. Engine Life HRS 3500 3000 3000
8. Operation, Available Not Not
E Maintenance available available
and customer
support
9. Operation at Yes No Yes
Night
F Document dated 29th 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
G
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
H maintenance cost while operating in Indian environmental
SWARAJ ABHIYAN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 999
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

conditions. Bell 427 also has certain limitations for the kind of A
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. B
Technical information comparison statement is submitted for
you kind reference please.
Sd/-
29.12.06
Gauri Shanker Godara C
Sr. Engineer (Helicopter)”
nd
Document dated 2 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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
placement / contract signature on or before 31st 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.
H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.

A Invoice Price
Payable to manufacturer – Agusta Westland, Italy towards:
Price of the Helicopter US $ 5,131,000
Services* US $ 115,000
B US $ 5,246,000
Payable to M/s. Sharp Ocean Investments
Ltd Hong Kong towards:
Pre-booking cost US $ 1,069,000
C
Total US $ 6,315,000
===========
* includes dis-assembly; packing and preservation; freight;
insurance; re-assembly and test flight in India prior to
D 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 31st January, 2007.”
E Document dated 13th March, 2007

“Agusta Westland A Finmeccanica Company

The Director Aviation
F Government of Chhattisgarh
RAIPUR
India
Dear Sir:

G
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 22nd December, 2006 to make a
presentation on the suitability of our helicopters the AW 139
and the A 109 Power for your requirements.
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 1001
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

In this regard, we are pleased to confirm the following A
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. B

(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 C
“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 D
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 E
Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
Umberto Fontanella
Head of Region F
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 G
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 H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.

A 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)
B
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
C 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
D 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 20091.
E 14. On merits, as depicted in the comparative statement dated
19th 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
F 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 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
G the distributors M/s. Sharp Ocean Investments Limited, Hong Kong 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 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
H W.P. No.65 of 2016
SWARAJ ABHIYAN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 1003
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

Thus, for quick delivery, the State negotiated with M/s. Sharp Ocean A
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 30th October, 2007 and thus, the remaining amount was
by way of commission cannot be accepted in view of contents of the
B
Agreement dated 9th October, 2007 and the correspondence. The said
agreement shows that Agusta had entered into agreement dated 24th
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 $ C
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
D
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 5th August, 2006. Obviously, it is difficult to
accept the contention that real value in the present transaction was US
$ 5.246 million on 26th October, 2017 when the company itself vide letter
dated 13th March, 2007 showed inability for early disposal and stated E
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 F
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 26th October, 2007, between Sharp Ocean G
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 24th May, 2006 read with Agreement dated 13th
November, 2006 in favour of Sharp Ocean Investments Limited) and H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C gains and should not be looked into in view of S.P. Gupta versus Union
of India2, Janata Dal versus H.S. Chowdhary3, Rajiv Ranjan Singh
‘Lalan’ (VIII) versus Union of India4, Ashok Kumar Pandey versus
State of West Bengal5, Kunga Nima Lepcha versus State of Sikkim6,
Kishore Samrite versus State of U.P.7, Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj
versus T.N. Legislative Assembly8 and Santosh Singh versus Union
D of India9. 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
E 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
F in the petitions which hereby stand dismissed. No costs.

Nidhi Jain Petitions dismissed.

2
1981 (Supp) SCC 87
G 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
H (2016) 8 SCC 253