Unsubstantiated procurement allegations, unsupported by cogent evidence, do not warrant writ interference.

The petitioner, an agriculturist and public figure, filed a public interest litigation alleging irregularities in procurement by the Chhattisgarh Agriculture Department during the monsoon seasons from 2023 to 2025.

It was alleged that agricultural implements, vehicles, tractors, pesticides, insecticides, sprayers, pumps, computers and other goods were purchased directly from suppliers without following the prescribed tendering and Government e-Marketplace (GeM) procedures under the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002, as amended on 11 July 2024.

The petitioner relied on purchase entries from several districts, including transactions described as “unbranded” or lacking details of the goods purchased.

The petitioner sought an independent inquiry into the procurement process and chemical testing of the pesticides, insecticides and fertilizers purchased by the respondents.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the allegations were based on conjectures, incomplete records and a misappreciation of the procurement documents, and that no concrete evidence of illegality, collusion, financial loss or procurement of harmful products had been produced.

Whether the alleged procurement by the Agriculture Department was conducted in violation of the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002, particularly the provisions governing GeM procurement, direct purchase and tender procedures?

Whether the petitioner had produced sufficient and reliable material to establish favouritism, collusion, financial loss to the State exchequer, or unlawful procurement of unbranded, misbranded or prohibited agricultural inputs?

Whether the Court should direct an independent inquiry and chemical investigation into the procurement and quality of the agricultural inputs?

The Court considered the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002, as amended on 11 July 2024, particularly Rules 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, which prescribe procurement through GeM and value-based procedures for direct procurement and tendering.

The Court also considered the petitioner’s reliance on Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, including the principles of non-arbitrariness, fairness, equal opportunity in public procurement and protection of public interests.

However, the Court applied the settled principle that a public interest writ petition cannot succeed on conjectures, assumptions or unsubstantiated allegations; the petitioner must place substantive, reliable and cogent material establishing the alleged illegality or violation.

Mere incomplete entries in purchase records, repeated dealings with the same suppliers or newspaper reports, without primary supporting material, do not by themselves establish illegality, mala fides, collusion or adverse health and environmental consequences.

The Court found that the petitioner relied principally on selected entries in purchase records and general allegations of favouritism and violation of procurement rules.

The petitioner did not produce the underlying purchase orders, invoices, tender documents, comparative statements, inspection reports, payment records or other primary material necessary to determine whether the prescribed procedures had actually been bypassed.

The Court held that incomplete descriptions of goods and repeated purchases from common suppliers, without proof of collusion or deliberate circumvention of the rules, could not establish illegality or mala fides.

Similarly, the allegations concerning unbranded or misbranded pesticides were unsupported by material identifying any particular product as prohibited, spurious, misbranded or unlawfully procured.

No scientific, expert or official evidence connected the allegedly procured products with actual environmental or public-health harm.

In the absence of cogent evidence of statutory violation, exclusion of eligible suppliers, mala fide conduct, identifiable financial loss or unlawful agricultural inputs, the Court held that no basis existed for ordering an independent inquiry or chemical investigation.

The Court therefore declined to direct an independent inquiry or chemical testing and dismissed the public interest litigation as devoid of merit.