1 CGHC010377772025 2026:CGHC:38794-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 78 of 2025 1 - Uttam Dan Minj S/o Late M.A. Minj Aged About 58 Years R/o 88 Jokari Kunkuri Jashpur, Tehsil Kunkuri and District Jashpur C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Agriculture Development and Farmer Welfare and Bio Technology Department, Chhattisgarh, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Director of Agriculture, Through - Directorate of Agriculture, Capitol Complex, Sector 19, Atal Nagar- Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Government of India E-Marketplace (Gem). 3rd Floor Tower II, Jeevan Bharti Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi, Pin 110001 4 - Union of India Through Secretary, Department of Agriculture Development and Farmer Welfare and Bio Technology Department, India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, 110001 ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondents No.3 and 4 : Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.09.02 16:57:12 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 02. 09.2026 1. Heard Mr. Harsh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the State and Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):- “10.1. To direct independent inquiry about the purchase for the monsoon seasons from 2023 to 2025 over the allegations leveled about direct purchase avoiding the tender process. 10.2. The Hon'ble court pleased to direct the chemical investigation about standard and quality of the pesticides, insecticides, fertilizers etc. purchased by Respondent. 10.3. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts & circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 3. The present petition has been filed with the pleadings that the State of Chhattisgarh has a predominantly agriculture based population, with a substantial proportion of its population dependent upon agriculture and a large number of farmers 3 belonging to the small and marginal category. The Petitioner, a citizen of India, agriculturist and resident of Kunkuri, District Jashpur, is a socially active and law-abiding citizen who holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) degree and has also served in public life, including as State Secretary of the Youth Congress, Chhattisgarh, and as an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly from Kunkuri Assembly Constituency in the 2018 Vidhan Sabha elections. The present petition concerns alleged irregularities in procurement undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Chhattisgarh, across various districts of the State. It is alleged that several agricultural implements, vehicles, tractors, tractor trailers, generators, pesticides, insecticides, sprayers, pumps, computers, air-conditioners and other articles were procured directly from suppliers without following the prescribed tendering and public procurement procedure. The Petitioner relies upon the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002, as amended on 11.07.2024, particularly Rules 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, which prescribe procurement through the Government e-Marketplace (GeM), and stipulate the applicable procedure for direct procurement and tender/publication requirements depending upon the value of the procurement. 4. It is further alleged that, notwithstanding the mandatory procurement requirements, the Respondent Department made numerous purchases throughout districts including Bilaspur, 4 Raipur, Bastar, Surguja, Kabirdham, Baloda Bazar, Mungeli, Surajpur, Rajnandgaon, Dantewada, Korba, Janjgir-Champa, Korea, Bijapur, Dhamtari, Kanker, Gariaband, Durg and Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi, without issuing tenders or publishing the requisite notices in newspapers. The purchase records allegedly contain several transactions described as “unbranded” or without specifying the name, brand, quantity or even the nature of the articles purchased. Illustratively, the records disclose a purchase of Rs.26,16,327/- dated 15.03.2024 without specification of the items purchased, a purchase of Rs.43,60,500/- dated 27.03.2024 described as “unbranded”, and procurement of seven Maruti Suzuki vehicles on 16.04.2024 without an apparent tender process. The Petitioner further alleges that repeated purchases were made from common suppliers, including Balaji Traders, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and Sudeep Automotion, without adequate competitive process, and that certain pesticide and insecticide manufacturers were not registered under the Insecticides Act, 1968. According to the Petitioner, such procurement practices have resulted in favouritism towards particular suppliers, caused potential loss to the public exchequer, and compromised the quality and safety of agricultural inputs, particularly unbranded or misbranded pesticides. The Petitioner states that representations were submitted before the competent authorities seeking action, but no effective action was taken, compelling the Petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this 5 Hon’ble Court in public interest. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and in a non-transparent manner by making various procurements without following the mandatory tender procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002. It was contended that such action violates the principles of equality, fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution and has also deprived other eligible suppliers of a fair opportunity to participate in the procurement process, thereby affecting the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). According to learned counsel, repeated purchases from a limited group of suppliers, without competitive bidding or public notice, have resulted in a de facto monopoly and favouritism. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have acted in violation of Sub-Rules 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 of Rule 4 of the Store Purchase Rules, 2002, rendering such procurements contrary to the statutory framework. It was argued that non-transparent expenditure of public funds is contrary to the principles of accountable governance and public trust. Particular emphasis was placed on the alleged procurement of unbranded, unspecified and unverified pesticides and agricultural inputs, which, according to the petitioners, may adversely affect soil quality, agricultural production and public health. It was therefore submitted that the impugned procurement practices warrant interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction 6 in public interest. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents has opposed the petition and submitted that the present Public Interest Litigation is wholly misconceived, premature and based on merre conjectures and surmises without any credible material placed on record. It has been further submitted that the allegations made by the petitioners are based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of the procurement records. It has been contended that the purchases in question were made by the competent authorities in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures, and that mere differences in the manner of recording the particulars of the purchases do not establish any illegality, favouritism or financial irregularity. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners have failed to place any cogent material demonstrating loss to the public exchequer, collusion with suppliers, or procurement of harmful or prohibited agricultural inputs. It has been therefore argued that no violation of the constitutional or statutory provisions has been established and that the petition, being based on mere allegations and lacking substantive material, deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition as well as reply filed by the State. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings and material placed on record, this Court finds that 7 the principal grievance of the petitioner relates to alleged irregularities in procurement undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Chhattisgarh, in various districts of the State. The petitioner has relied upon certain entries in the purchase records and has alleged that several agricultural implements, vehicles, pesticides, insecticides and other articles were procured without following the tender procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002, particularly the provisions relating to the value-based procurement procedure. It has also been alleged that certain purchases were shown as “unbranded” or without specifying the name, brand, quantity or description of the articles and that repeated purchases were made from certain suppliers, thereby causing loss to the public exchequer and conferring undue benefit upon selected persons. However, except for referring to the purchase particulars and making general allegations of favouritism, arbitrariness and violation of the procurement rules, the petitioner has not placed before this Court any substantive or independent material demonstrating that the purchases were in fact made in violation of the applicable rules, that the prescribed procedure was deliberately bypassed, or that any particular supplier was favoured pursuant to an arrangement or collusion with the concerned officials. The mere fact that certain entries in the purchase records do not contain complete particulars, or that purchases were made from the same suppliers on different 8 occasions, by itself, cannot lead to a conclusion of illegality or mala fides. 9. The petitioner has also alleged that unbranded or misbranded pesticides and insecticides were procured and that some of the manufacturers were not registered under the applicable statutory provisions. However, no material has been placed on record establishing, with reference to any particular procurement, that the articles supplied were prohibited, spurious, misbranded or otherwise incapable of lawful procurement or use. Likewise, the allegation that such purchases were made with the object of securing commission or causing pecuniary benefit to private suppliers remains unsupported by any documentary or other cogent evidence. The petitioner has referred to certain individual transactions, including purchases of substantial amounts where the description of the articles is allegedly not reflected in the available list, but has not produced the underlying purchase orders, invoices, tender documents, comparative statements, inspection reports, payment records or any other primary material so as to enable the Court to examine whether the procurement, viewed in its entirety, was contrary to the statutory procedure. The pleadings, therefore, essentially proceed on an inference drawn from selected entries in the purchase list. While transparency and adherence to prescribed procurement procedures are undoubtedly important requirements of public administration, a writ petition, particularly one invoking the public interest 9 jurisdiction of this Court, cannot succeed merely on the basis of conjectures, assumptions or unsubstantiated allegations. 10. It is also significant that the petitioner has sought to attribute a violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution on the basis of the alleged procurement irregularities. However, the petitioner has not demonstrated any specific instance in which an eligible supplier was unlawfully excluded from participation, any decision of the authorities was actuated by mala fide intention, or any identifiable financial loss was caused to the State exchequer. Similarly, the reliance upon the public trust doctrine and the alleged adverse impact of pesticides upon soil and public health is not supported by any scientific, expert or official material connecting the alleged procurement with actual environmental or health consequences. The newspaper material relied upon by the petitioner, without any further supporting evidence relating to the products actually procured by the respondents, cannot by itself establish such a nexus. 11. In view of the abovementioned circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to place sufficient, reliable and cogent material to substantiate the allegations of illegal procurement, favouritism, collusion, financial loss or violation of statutory and constitutional provisions. The relief sought, therefore, cannot be granted merely on the basis of allegations contained in the petition, and no sufficient ground for interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this 10 Court is made out. The pleadings and documents produced do not disclose any violation warranting exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil/Alok