Chattisgarh High Court
Upendra Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11787-DB
Digitally signed
ALOK
by ALOK
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
NAFR
2026.03.17
12:42:42 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPPIL No. 13 of 2026
Upendra Gupta S/o Chhabinath Prasad Gupta Aged About 31 Years R/o
Indira Nagar (Behind Church), Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And
Family Welfare, Mantralaya Nava Raipur, Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Secretary State Heath Society (Nhm), Chhattisgarh,
Raipur,chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Ltd. (Chmscl) Through
Managing Director Cgmscl, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - Dhanush Healthcare Systems Private Limited Through Its Director
Address- Lakshmi Building 5th And 6th Floor, Begumpet, Hyderabad
Telangana India
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Dansena, along with Mr. Adarsh Patel, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent No. 3. : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/03/2026
1. Heard Mr. Prashant Dansena, along with Mr. Adarsh Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also hear Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent/State, Mr. Trivikram Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 3.
2. By way of this writ petition (PIL), the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
"10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent authority for constituting an independent Commission investigate the entire procurement process of the 57 MMUs under PM-
JANMAN (tenders, technical evaluation, approvals, delivery acceptance, payments, and deployment).
10.2 Direct the said Commission / Committee to fix individual accountability, identify lapses, collusion, negligence, or willful dereliction of duty, and to recommend departmental, civil, and criminal action against erring officials and private entities, in accordance with law.
10.3 Issue appropriate directions to immediately inspect all 57 MMUs through an independent 3 technical agency accredited institution, to assess structural safety, medical fitness, and operational readiness in terms of the tender conditions and NHM guidelines.
10.4 Direct initiation of proceedings under applicable anti-corruption, penal, and financial accountability laws, including but not limited to the Prevention of Corruption Act, if the inquiry discloses criminal misconduct, wrongful loss to the State, or wrongful gain to private parties.
10.5 Award costs of the petition in favour of the Petitioner and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, public health, and accountability.
10.6 Any other order or direction this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and public health."
3. The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the larger public interest to address serious irregularities in the implementation of the Prime Minister's Janjati Adivasi Nyaya Maha Abhiyan (PM- JANMAN), a national initiative aimed at ensuring healthcare access and social justice for tribal and Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs). Pursuant to this scheme, the Government of Chhattisgarh introduced 57 Mobile Medical Units (MMUs) intended to function as mobile Primary Health Centres to serve remote tribal regions lacking 4 permanent medical infrastructure. For this purpose, Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited issued a tender on 04.04.2025 for procurement and operation of these MMUs at an estimated public cost of approximately Rs. 108 crores. The contract was awarded to Dhanush Healthcare Systems Private Limited, which subsequently supplied 57 vehicles purported to meet the prescribed technical specifications.
4. However, the vehicles supplied were structurally and technically non-compliant with the mandatory tender requirements, including insufficient Gross Vehicle Weight (5800 kg instead of the required 6000 kg), inadequate internal height (1880 mm instead of the required 6.5 feet), and severely restricted usable internal space. These deficiencies render the vehicles incapable of functioning as full-fledged Mobile Medical Units equipped to deliver primary healthcare services in remote areas. Additionally, essential medical fittings and infrastructure such as wash basins, water tanks, power backup systems, oxygen cylinders, and other safety equipment are reportedly absent or substandard, defeating the very objective of the scheme.
5. As a consequence of these deficiencies, 35 out of the 57 MMUs remain parked and non-operational, despite substantial public funds having already been disbursed, causing an estimated financial loss exceeding Rs. 25.7 crores to the public exchequer. The failure to deploy functional MMUs has resulted in denial of basic healthcare services to tribal and PVTG communities, thereby infringing their fundamental Right to Life and Health under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Despite representations made by the petitioner to the authorities, no effective 5 inquiry or remedial action has been undertaken, raising serious concerns regarding administrative negligence, misuse of public funds, and possible collusion in the procurement process.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the actions of the Respondents in procuring and accepting structurally deficient and non- compliant Mobile Medical Units under the Prime Minister's Janjati Adivasi Nyaya Maha Abhiyan (PM-JANMAN), in blatant violation of the tender conditions issued by Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited, are arbitrary, unreasonable, and unconstitutional, thereby violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The defective MMUs supplied by Dhanush Healthcare Systems Private Limited are incapable of functioning as Primary Health Centres on wheels and have resulted in denial of essential healthcare services to tribal and PVTG communities residing in remote regions of Chhattisgarh, defeating the very objective of the scheme and causing substantial loss to the public exchequer. The acceptance of vehicles that fail to meet mandatory technical specifications, coupled with the release of full payments despite non-deployment of a majority of the units, reflects gross administrative negligence, arbitrariness, and possible collusion on the part of responsible officials. It is therefore submitted that the continued inaction of the authorities, despite representations and public reports highlighting these irregularities, necessitates urgent intervention by this Hon'ble Court to protect public funds, enforce accountability in public procurement, and safeguard the fundamental right to health and life of marginalized tribal populations.
6
7. He further submits that the present Public Interest Litigation has been filed in larger public interest to address grave irregularities in the procurement and deployment of 57 Mobile Medical Units under the Prime Minister's Janjati Adivasi Nyaya Maha Abhiyan (PM-JANMAN) in the State of Chhattisgarh. The tender issued by Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited mandated strict compliance with technical specifications under Annexure-10 and essential medical equipment requirements under Annexure-13, however, the vehicles supplied by Dhanush Healthcare Systems Private Limited are structurally and functionally non-compliant, including reduced Gross Vehicle Weight, inadequate interior height, limited usable space, and absence or substandard provision of essential medical equipment such as water tanks, wash basins, oxygen cylinders, fire safety devices, and power backup systems. These deficiencies render the MMUs incapable of functioning as Primary Health Centres on wheels, resulting in denial of essential healthcare services to remote tribal communities and leaving 35 out of 57 units idle despite expenditure of approximately Rs. 108 crores of public funds. The petitioner further submits that the authorities ignored the adverse past performance and termination of projects of Respondent No. 4 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, and despite representations made by the petitioner, no inquiry or corrective action has been undertaken. Such arbitrary actions violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, undermine the objectives of the National Health Mission, and result in grave public loss; therefore, this Hon'ble Court's intervention is necessary to ensure accountability, independent 7 investigation, and protection of public health and public funds.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondent/State submits that the present writ petition is misconceived, based on incomplete and unverified facts, and therefore deserves to be dismissed. It is submitted that the procurement and deployment of Mobile Medical Units under the Prime Minister's Janjati Adivasi Nyaya Maha Abhiyan (PM-JANMAN) were undertaken through a transparent tender process conducted by Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited, strictly in accordance with the applicable procurement rules and the framework of the National Health Mission. The contract was awarded to Dhanush Healthcare Systems Private Limited after due technical and financial evaluation by a competent committee of experts. The allegations regarding non-compliance with tender specifications and functional deficiencies in the Mobile Medical Units are denied as exaggerated and based primarily on media reports rather than any official technical inspection report. It is further submitted that the vehicles supplied are capable of performing the intended mobile healthcare services and are being deployed in phases across tribal and remote areas of Chhattisgarh. Any minor operational or technical issues, if noticed during field deployment, are being addressed in accordance with contractual provisions and standard maintenance protocols. The State has acted in good faith to expand healthcare access to vulnerable tribal populations, and there has been no arbitrariness, illegality, or violation of constitutional provisions as alleged by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition, lacking substantive 8 evidence of wrongdoing and seeking to interfere with an ongoing public health initiative, is liable to be dismissed.
9. Mr. Trivikram Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 submits that the allegations sought to be levelled against him in the present petition are wholly misconceived, unsubstantiated, and made without any specific material establishing his personal involvement in the alleged irregularities. Respondent No. 3 submits that the tender for procurement and operation of Mobile Medical Units under the Prime Minister's Janjati Adivasi Nyaya Maha Abhiyan (PM-JANMAN) was processed through the institutional framework of Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited, involving multiple levels of technical, financial, and administrative scrutiny by duly constituted committees, and no unilateral decision was taken by Respondent No. 3. All actions were performed strictly in discharge of official duties and in accordance with the applicable procurement guidelines of the National Health Mission and the policies of the Government of Chhattisgarh. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 3 neither derived any personal benefit nor acted beyond the scope of his authority, and therefore cannot be held personally liable for allegations relating to technical specifications, inspection, or operational deployment of the Mobile Medical Units supplied by Dhanush Healthcare Systems Private Limited. In absence of any specific act of mala fide, collusion, or misconduct attributable to Respondent No. 3, the attempt to implead and implicate him in the present proceedings is legally untenable and deserves to be rejected. 9
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with writ petition.
11. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the pleadings and material placed on record, this Court has considered the maintainability of the present Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner, Upendra Gupta, raising allegations relating to procurement and deployment of Mobile Medical Units under the Prime Minister's Janjati Adivasi Nyaya Maha Abhiyan (PM-JANMAN) in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is well settled that a petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation must satisfy the basic requirements of bona fide public interest, credible foundation of facts, and sufficient locus on the part of the petitioner to espouse the cause before the Court. In the present case, the allegations raised in the petition are primarily based upon newspaper reports and generalized assertions, without placing on record cogent, verified or technical material to establish the alleged violations of tender conditions or the functional deficiencies in the Mobile Medical Units procured by Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited. The petitioner has not demonstrated any direct involvement, expertise, or legally sustainable basis enabling him to maintain the present petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation.
12. It is relevant to mention that it is the duty of this Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive and oblique notice behind filing of PIL. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the Courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. 10
13. The Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. The Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests.
14. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Gurmet Singh Soni Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2021 (5) ADJ 409, noticing the decision of the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029 and other judgments of the Apex Court on the issue, has dismissed the public interest litigation.
15. The Courts cannot allow its process to be abused for oblique purposes, as was observed by the Supreme Court Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2004) 3 SCC
349. In Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had discussed the three stages of a PIL which has been discussed above. The Supreme Court, in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) states as to how this important jurisdiction, i.e., PIL has been abused at Para 143 by observing as under:
11
"143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by the courts."
16. The Supreme Court, in Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chand Mishra, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 281 which has relied Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 305, observed as under:
"12. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters-- government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public 12 revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders, etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system."
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, the appointment of the appellant as Auction Recorder was challenged. The Court held that the scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation and locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this Court in various cases. The Court observed that before entertaining the petition, the Court must be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. The court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) 13 avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions.
18. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the present PIL for the reliefs claimed therein as it appears that for oblique motive, the present PIL has been filed by the petitioner who claims himself to be the District Coordinator at Surguja Science Group Education Society, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, which is a non-governmental organization.
19. In the present case, we are not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even otherwise, the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy for redressal of his grievance as raised in this petition.
20. Accordingly, the present PIL is dismissed on the ground of lack of locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the present proceedings. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the security money deposited in compliance with the Rules of this Court be directed to be refunded. However, considering that the petition itself has been dismissed at the threshold on the ground of locus and maintainability, this Court is not inclined to grant the said relief. Consequently, the request for refund of the security deposit also stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Alok