UTTAM DAN MINJ vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Digitally signed by
MOHAMMED
AADIL KHAN
Date: 2026.09.02
16:57:12 +0530
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

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