SWARAJ ABHIYAN AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. on 13 February 2018

[2018] 2 S.C.R. 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 seekingdirection for investigation into the alleged anomalies/irregularitiesin the purchase of helicopter by the State of Chhattisgarh and alsointo the alleged bank accounts in British Virgin Islands (UK) linkedwith the son of Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh – Allegation thatChhattisgarh Government purchased helicopter by floating a shamtender, paid excess money and in the process caused loss of Rs. 65lakhs to exchequer in the procurement of the helicopter –Interference with – Held: Not called for – State Government wasentitled to make a choice to purchase the Helicopter – Nothing onrecord to show that the Helicopter could have been procured forlesser price – No person claiming to give a better deal has comeforward – Thus, in absence of clear evidence that loss was causedto public exchequer by way of commission payment to the Companywhich was only a route to send the payment to the son of the ChiefMinister, interference by this Court not called for – Further, in thetripartite agreement CAG report did not attribute any extraneousconsideration in the deal – Also there is no material to prima faciehold 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 decisionsof the Executive without there being clear issue of genuine publicinterest – However, they do not create a jurisdictional bar, ifconscience of the Court is pricked in a given case – Petition u/Art.32, without clear element of public interest, cannot be entertainedat the instance of a political rival merely on account of an allegedprocedural irregularity in the decision making which can bechallenged at appropriate forum by the aggrieved party.

A

B

CD

EF

G

H

ADismissing the Writ Petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 Son of the Chief Minister is not personally aparty. Disclosure in Panama Papers is a matter which is still underinvestigation by Multi Agency Group constituted by theGovernment of India on 4th April, 2016 which is to give its reportBto the Special Investigating Team constituted by this Court videorder 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 statementdated 19[th] December, 2006 signed by the Senior HelicopterCEngineer and Chief Pilot (H), on comparison of A-109 Power, B-247 and EC-135 T1, parameters of Delivery Schedule, Numberof Aircrafts in India, Maintenance facility in India, SparesInventory in India, Technical trained manpower, Engine Power,Engine Life,Operation, Maintenance and customer support andOperation at Night were in favour of A-109 Power. Letter datedD2[nd] January,2007 addressed to the Director, Aviation, Governmentof Chhattisgarh shows that A Company itself was not in a positionto 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 totalEamount 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 VIPoperations. Thus, for quick delivery, the State negotiated withSO Company. Final payment made is of 6,570,000 (Six millionfive hundred seventy thousand). The said agreement shows thatFA Company entered into agreement dated 24[th] May, 2006 forsale of Helicopter Model A-109 to S Company. The sale wasassigned by the said S Company to SO Company and SO Companyhad made certain advance payments to A Company. SO Companyhad claimed its holding charges. A Company itself made it clearGthat the price was US $ 6 Million if delivery time was more. Forearlier delivery, pre-sold Helicopter could be purchased from itsdistributor at a higher price. Thus, it cannot be said that therewas an excess payment for extraneous reason. Comparison withthe price at which Jharkhand proposed to purchase helicopterhas no relevance as that was a deal in the year 2005 at whichH

price the helicopter was not available at the relevant time. Pricein Jharkhand deal was US $ 5.591 million and the said transactionis dated 5[th] August, 2006. Obviously, it is difficult to accept thecontention that real value in the present transaction was US $5.246 million on 26.10.2017 when the company itself vide letterdated 13.03.2007 showed inability for early disposal and statedthat the price was US $ 6.0 million if delivery period was morethan two years. [Para 14] [1002-E-H; 1003-A-E]

1.3 It cannot be disputed that the State Government wasentitled to make a choice to purchase the Helicopter in question.There is nothing on record to show that the Helicopter couldhave been procured for lesser price. No person claiming to givea better deal has come forward. Thus, in absence of clear evidencethat loss was caused to public exchequer by way of commissionpayment to SO Company which was only a route to send thepayment to the son of the Chief Minister, interference by thisCourt is not called for. There is a tripartite agreement dated 26[th]October, 2007, between SO Company, the State of Chhatisgarhand A Company to the effect that SO Company was entitled toretain 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, 2006read with Agreement dated 13[th] November, 2006 in favour of SOCompany and US $ 1,473, 800 under Article 4.1.B of the Contract.The CAG report does not attribute any extraneous considerationin the deal. [Para 15] [1003-F-H; 1004-A]

1.4 There is no material to prima facie hold that beneficiaryof transaction was AS. It is not necessary to go into the allegationof mere procedural irregularities. No case is made out forinterference by this Court for issuing a direction as sought inabsence of allegation of extraneous consideration beingsubstantiated. [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] 4Suppl. SCR 742; Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of WestBengal (2004) 3 SCC 349 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 716;Kunga Nima Lepcha v. State of Sikkim (2010) 4 SCC

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A513 : [2010] 3 SCR 787; Kishore Samrite v State ofU.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 Singhversus Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 253 : [2016] 5SCR 761 – referred to.

B

1.5 The Court are cautioned against interference withdecisions of the Executive without there being clear issue ofgenuine public interest. However, they do not create ajurisdictional bar, if conscience of the Court is pricked in a givencase. A petition under Article 32, without clear element of publicCinterest, cannot be entertained at the instance of a political rivalmerely on account of an alleged procedural irregularity in thedecision making which can be challenged at appropriate forumby the aggrieved party. There is no ground to grant prayer assought in the petitions. [Para 17] [1004-D-F]

D

Case Law Reference

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.720 of 2016

Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.GWITH

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

Mahesh Jethmalani, V. Mohana, Sr. Advs., Tushar Mehta andMs. Pinky Anand, ASGs, Apoorv Kurup, A. C. Boxipatro, Ms. SakshiKakkar, Ravi Sharma, Rajat Nair, Kanu Aggrawala, Mukul Singh, BalenderShekar, 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 ofWrit Petition (Civil) Nos.720, 753 and 973 of 2016. All the three writpetitions involve the same issue. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 720 of 2016has been filed by Swaraj Abhiyan, a political party along with petitionerNo. 2 who is said to be an office bearer of a N.G.O., seeking directionfor investigation into the purchase of A-109 power E-helicopter by theState of Chhatisgarh and also into the alleged bank accounts in BritishVirgin 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 Chhattisgarhentered into an agreement dated 26[th] October, 2017 with Sharp OceanInvestments Limited and acquired a helicopter without following the dueprocess and caused loss to the government. It is also alleged that anaccount was opened by the son of the Chief Minister 6 months after thebulk payment was made by the Government for the said purchase. Thedatabase compiled by the International Consortium of InvestigativeJournalists (ICIJ) shows Abhishak Singh as the shareholder of QuestHeights Limited (incorporated in British Virgin Islands on 3.7.2008) andSharecorp Limited. The CAG report stated that loss of Rs.65 lakhs wascaused to the exchequer in the procurement of the helicopter.

3. Writ Petition (Civil) No.753 of 2016 has been filed jointly by theleader of the opposition of the Chhattisgarh Assembly and a publisher ofa journal seeking direction to conduct enquiry into the helicopter purchasedeals of the States of Chhattisgarh, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthanand Jharkhand.

4. Writ Petition (Civil) No.973 of 2016 has been filed by Mr. RakeshKumar Choubey claiming to be a social activist seeking direction toconduct an enquiry into the British Virgin Island Companies of AbhishakSingh and the links of these companies in receiving kickbacks from SharpOcean Investments, OSS Air Management Pvt. Ltd. and AgustaWestland and also enquiry into the procurement of the helicopter by theState of Chhattisgarh.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

A5. A copy of the first petition was directed to be served on theCentral Agency so that the Union of India could put in appearance. Asrecorded in order dated 2[nd] December, 2016, learned Attorney Generalraised an objection that the issue was of political nature in the guise of apublic interest litigation to settle political scores. Again, vide order dated19[th] April, 2017, this Court observed that the said objection of the AttorneyBGeneral was required to be heard first.

6. However, since on a later date, this Court was of the viewthat the objection of the Attorney General did not bar the jurisdiction ofthis Court and the matter may be required to be considered on merits,the State of Chhattisgarh filed counter affidavit, produced the originalCfiles and also filed photocopies of the same. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed.

7. We have heard Shri Prashant Bhushan appearing for thepetitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 720 and 753 of 2016, Shri SanjayR. Hegde, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner in Writ PetitionD(Civil) No. 973 of 2016, Shri Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Advocate forthe 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 submissionof the petitioners that the helicopter was purchased by ChhattisgarhEGovernment by floating a sham tender and that in the process loss wascaused to the public exchequer. We have also considered the furthercontention that Abhishak Singh, son of Chief Minister of Chhattisgarhcould be the beneficiary in the transaction.

9. Shri Jethmalani explained the factual position with referenceFto the record. He submitted that in the year 2002, the State of Chhattisgarhhad purchased a Eurocopter (EC135) which crashed on 14[th] July, 2007and became unusable. Before the sad crash, on 19[th] December, 2006,the Chief Pilot and Quality Control Manager of the Aviation Departmentof the State recommended purchase of a “twin engine Helicopter” whichGcan carry at least four passengers with maximum fuel load across theState without refueling mid-way and still having enough power margin,efficient performance and least maintenance cost. This was to meet thesecurity concerns of the State affected by extremist’s violence. Thisproposal was also on account of high cost of maintenance of the existinghelicopter. The State, on 6[th] January, 2007, constituted a three-memberHCommittee comprising the Additional Chief Secretary (Aviation), the

Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister and the Principal Secretary(Finance) to take an informed decision in the matter. The Committee, on12[th] January, 2007, recommended purchase of Agusta A-109 Powerhelicopter. Correspondence was exchanged between the State and theAgusta. The Agusta, vide letter dated 27[th] January, 2007, informed thatthe company could give delivery of A-109 Power helicopter by middleof 2009. The price will be in the region of US $ 6.0 million. However, ifthe State wanted early delivery, the company had already pre-sold somehelicopters to their dealers of the region M/s. Sharp Ocean InvestmentsLimited, Hong Kong who could be contacted. The service provider ofthe company in India was Mr. V. Krishnan, who could assist in thisregard.

10. Accordingly, a delegation of the State went to Hong Kongand negotiated with M/s. Sharp Ocean Investments Limited, Hong Kongand gave its report on 15[th] February, 2007 to the effect that the helicoptercould 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 Aviationthat efforts should be first made to acquire the helicopter at 2005 price(about Rs.24 crores). Since this proposal could not materialize as videletter dated 5.4.2007, the OSS Air Management Pvt. Ltd. that price ofUS $ 6 million + services was final price, global tender was published.Three proposals were received and the High Level Committee afterevaluation on 7[th] July, 2007, recommended acceptance of tender submittedby M/s. Sharp Ocean Investments Limited, subject to delivery beingmade by December, 2007. Accordingly a decision was taken andpurchase order was placed and thereafter delivery was effected.Payments were made as follows:

“(a) USD 1,324,000 to Sharp Ocean (i)n consideration ofprocuring the sale of the Helicopter by Agusta to thePurchaser and to assign, transfer and set over to thePurchaser, Sharp’s rights under the Sale Contract.

(b) USD 1,573,800 to Sharp Ocean as reimbursement of themonies “that Sharp has already paid ….. as partconsideration towards the purchaser of the Helicopter toAgusta in accordance with the Sale Contract.

(c) USD 3,672,200 to Agusta as the balance amount at thetime of the scheduled acceptance of the helicopter.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A11. In support of the above, following documents have beenreferred to :

Document dated 19thDecember, 2006

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF LIGHT TWIN ENGINEHELICOPTER

B

S.PARAMETERUNITSA-109 B-427EC-135 No. POWER TI 1. Delivery Months 18-24 12-18 18-24 Schedule 2. No.of Aircraft 04 Nil 01 Cin India3. Maintenance Available Nil Nil facility in India 4.Spares HeldNot heldNot heldInventory in IndiaD5. Technical Yes No Very trained less manpower 6. Engine Power SHP 900 800 826 7.Engine LifeHRS3500300030008. Operation, Available Not Not EMaintenance availableavailableand customer support 9. Operation at Yes No Yes Night FDocument dated 29thDecember, 2006

“Presently only three Helicopter are leading in the market inthe light twin engine category which can be utilized by State Govt.for VIP operation.

G

Out of these three Helicopters EC-135 is already being usedby Govt. of Chhattisgarh has power limitation and excessiveHmaintenance cost while operating in Indian environmental

A

conditions. Bell 427 also has certain limitations for the kind ofoperation required for our State Govt. Bell 427 is a VFR categoryHelicopter, can operate only in day light and cannot fly after sunset.

Therefore, considering suitability of Helicopter for VIPoperation for State Govt. and technical data performance AgustaA-109 is most suitable for State Govt. VIP operation.

B

Technical information comparison statement is submitted foryou kind reference please.

Sd/-29.12.06

C

Gauri Shanker GodaraSr. Engineer (Helicopter)”

Document dated 2ndJanuary, 2007

“… … …As you are aware, the world helicopter market isextremely tight and manufacturers including Agusta are notin a position to deliver a light twin engine helicopter beforeJanuary, 2010. However, we, as Service Providers for Agustain India are in a position to secure the delivery of a A-109Power helicopter in 6 seat VIP Elite configuration for aconfirmed delivery in August/September 2007 itself from theirdistributors M/s. Sharp Ocean Investments Limited, HongKong who have pre-bought this machine. The purchase pricewill be as follows:

D

E

Amount payable to Agusta Westland, ItalyUS$ 3,673,000

Amount payable to M/s. Sharp OceanInvestment Ltd., Hong KongUS$ 2,642,000FTotal amount payableUS$ 6,315,000

Payment Schedule:

Down payment of US $ 2,642,000 to M/s. Sharp OceanInvestments Limited, Hong Kong at the time of orderGplacement / contract signature on or before 31[st] January,2007. The balance amount of US $ 3,673,000 will be payableto Agusta S.p.A., Italy in August 2007 at the time of“acceptance” of the helicopter by the Government ofChhattisgarh in Milan, Italy.

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

* includes dis-assembly; packing and preservation; freight;insurance; re-assembly and test flight in India prior tohanding-over The helicopter will be invoiced and delivered by AgustaWestland directly to the Government of Chhattisgarh. Theconfirmed order with down payment will have to be releasedon or before 31[st] January, 2007.”

Document dated 13thMarch, 2007

“Agusta Westland

A Finmeccanica Company

The Director AviationGovernment of ChhattisgarhRAIPURIndiaDear Sir:

We thank you very much for the kind courtesies extended toour Service Providers representative in India Mr. V. Krishnanwhen he called on you on 22[nd] December, 2006 to make apresentation on the suitability of our helicopters the AW 139and the A 109 Power for your requirements.

In this regard, we are pleased to confirm the followinginformation in response to your e-mail today:

(a) The earliest delivery we can offer from the Companyfor the A109 Power is today middle 2009.

(b) The ROM price for the Elite configuration you arelooking 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 contractsignature or to the import license obtaining whichevercome 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 wehave pre-sold some helicopters to our dealers for your regionM/s. Sharp Ocean Investments Limited, 1402, One DuddellStreet, Central, Hong Kong who will be in a position to offeryou earlier deliveries of the helicopters booked by them onbehalf of their customers in India. Our Service providersrepresentative in India Mr. V. Krishnan (Mob. + [REDACTED]) can assist you in this regard.

Thanking you

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-Umberto FontanellaHead of RegionAgusta Westland”

Report of the CAG

“Having failed to sign the contract by the due date, theGovernment floated (May 2007) a global tender for purchaseof Agusta A 109 Power helicopter. Out of the five bidsreceived, the Cabinet approved (August 2007) the bid of thesame Hong-Kong based dealer, who had offered to supplythe helicopter earlier, and signed (October 2007) theagreement for US $ 65.70 lakh (Rs.25.96 crore as perprevailing exchange rates). The supply of helicopter was A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

Areceived in December 2007 and payment of Rs.25.96 crorewas made. Thus, due to avoidable delay in taking decisionon signing the contract by due date for purchase of newhelicopter at the first instance, the Government had topurchase the same helicopter model from the same dealer atan extra cost of Rs.65 lakh (Rs.25.96 crore – Rs.25.31 crore)Bas detailed in Appendix-2.1”

12. The objection on behalf of the petitioners is that in all the threeoffers, it was the same person who negotiated. Other helicopters werenot considered. Excess price was paid to benefit the son of the ChiefMinister. Question is whether the allegations are substantiated. EvenCthough the submission initially appeared to require consideration onaccount of which the State was directed to produce the record andexplain the position after due consideration, we find it difficult to acceptthe same.

13. Son of the Chief Minister is not personally a party. DisclosureDin Panama Papers is a matter which is still under investigation by MultiAgency Group constituted by the Government of India on 4[th] April, 2016which is to give its report to the Special Investigating Team constitutedby this Court vide order dated 4[th] July, 2011 in Writ Petition (Civil)No.176 of 2009[1].E

14. On merits, as depicted in the comparative statement dated19[th] December, 2006 signed by the Senior Helicopter Engineer and ChiefPilot (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 trainedFmanpower, Engine Power, Engine Life, Operation, Maintenance andcustomer 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 positionto deliver the light twin engine helicopter before January, 2010. However,it stated that the same could be secured in August/September, 2007 fromGthe distributors M/s. Sharp Ocean Investments Limited, Hong Kong at atotal 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 inHW.P. No.65 of 2016

Thus, for quick delivery, the State negotiated with M/s. Sharp OceanInvestments Limited. Final payment made is of 6,570,000 (Six millionfive hundred seventy thousand). Contention that the price of theHelicopter was US $ 5,246,000 as shown by the invoice of the AgustaWestland dated 30[th] October, 2007 and thus, the remaining amount wasby way of commission cannot be accepted in view of contents of theAgreement dated 9[th] October, 2007 and the correspondence. The saidagreement shows that Agusta had entered into agreement dated 24[th]May, 2006 for sale of Agusta Helicopter Model A-109 to Serum Instituteof India Limited. The sale was assigned by the said Serum to Sharp andSharp had made certain advance payments to Agusta. Sharp had claimedits holding charges. Agusta itself made it clear that the price was US $6 Million if delivery time was more. For earlier delivery, pre-soldHelicopter could be purchased from its distributor at a higher price. Thus,it cannot be said that there was an excess payment for extraneousreason. Comparison with the price at which Jharkhand proposed topurchase helicopter has no relevance as that was a deal in the year 2005at which price the helicopter was not available at the relevant time asnoted earlier. Price in Jharkhand deal was US $ 5.591 million and thesaid transaction is dated 5[th] August, 2006. Obviously, it is difficult toaccept the contention that real value in the present transaction was US$ 5.246 million on 26[th] October, 2017 when the company itself vide letterdated 13[th] March, 2007 showed inability for early disposal and statedthat the price was US $ 6.0 million if delivery period was more than twoyears.

15. It cannot be disputed that the State Government was entitledto make a choice to purchase the Helicopter in question. There is nothingon record to show that the Helicopter could have been procured forlesser price. No person claiming to give a better deal has come forward.Thus, in absence of clear evidence that loss was caused to publicexchequer by way of commission payment to Sharp Ocean InvestmentsLimited which was only a route to send the payment to the son of theChief Minister, interference by this Court is not called for. There is atripartite agreement dated 26[th] October, 2007, between Sharp OceanInvestments Limited, the State of Chhatisgarh and Agusta to the effectthat Sharp Ocean Investments Limited was entitled to retain paymentmade by it to Agusta to the extent of US $ 100,000 (As per Article 4.1.Aof Agreement dated 24[th] May, 2006 read with Agreement dated 13[th]November, 2006 in favour of Sharp Ocean Investments Limited) and AB

C

DE

F

GH

AUS $ 1,473, 800 under Article 4.1.B of the Contract. The CAG reportdoes not attribute any extraneous consideration in the deal.

16. There is no material to prima facie hold that beneficiary oftransaction was Abhishak Singh. We do not consider it necessary to gointo the allegation of mere procedural irregularities. We broadly find thatBno case is made out for interference by this Court for issuing a directionas sought in absence of allegation of extraneous consideration beingsubstantiated.

17. Having considered the merits, we need not go into the objectionraised on behalf of the respondents that the petition was for politicalCgains and should not be looked into in view of S.P. Gupta versus Unionof India[2], Janata Dal versus H.S. Chowdhary[3], Rajiv Ranjan Singh‘Lalan’ (VIII) versus Union of India[4], Ashok Kumar Pandey versusState of West Bengal[5], Kunga Nima Lepcha versus State of Sikkim[6],Kishore Samrite versus State of U.P.[7], Alagaapuram R. Mohanrajversus T.N. Legislative Assembly[8]and Santosh Singh versus UnionDof India[9]. There is no doubt about the legal position enunciated in thesaid decisions cautioning the Court against interference with decisionsof the Executive without there being clear issue of genuine public interest.However, they do not create a jurisdictional bar, if conscience of theCourt is pricked in a given case. A petition under Article 32, withoutEclear element of public interest, cannot be entertained at the instance ofa political rival merely on account of an alleged procedural irregularity inthe decision making which can be challenged at appropriate forum bythe aggrieved party.

Accordingly, we do not find any ground to grant prayer as soughtFin the petitions which hereby stand dismissed. No costs.

Nidhi Jain Petitions dismissed.

2 1981 (Supp) SCC 87G3 (1992) 4 SCC 3054 (2006) 6 SCC 613

5 (2004) 3 SCC 349

6 (2010) 4 SCC 513

7 (2013) 2 SCC 398

8 (2016) 6 SCC 82

H9 (2016) 8 SCC 253