[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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:
"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
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)
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
