Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 276 (GAU)

Tadar Tang v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2020-02-25

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

body2020
JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. - The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is being filed in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The basic grievance is with regard to the utilization of an amount of more than Rs.400 crores under the Revised Estimate (RE) Scheme for the year 2015-2016 for various developmental works in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The principal allegation is that the works amounting to more than Rs.400 crores have been allotted without inviting tenders and to benefit persons with vested interests. Such illegality has been alleged to have been done by various Government officials in nexus with the politicians and contractors. The petitioners have prayed for a direction to institute an investigation in the matter by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI for short) and to register a criminal case against the erring persons. 2. The brief facts of the case may be summarized in the following manner. 3. Ten numbers of petitioners, who claim to be the office bearers of an organization, namely, Arunachal Anti-Corruption Sena, have joined together to file this petition. It is the case of the petitioners that on an earlier occasion, a PIL was filed before this Court, being PIL No.64/2014 on the subject of calling for tenders for execution of works under the Revised Estimate Scheme for the year 2013-2014. Though the said PIL was disposed of vide order 04.11.2014, the directions issued by this Court for inviting tenders were not complied with. It is the case of the petitioners that the entire amount of Rs.110 crores for the Revised Estimate Scheme for the year 2013-2014 was misappropriated. The petitioners have alleged that an amount of Rs.300 crores which was sanctioned for the year 2014-2015 was also misappropriated. The present grievance pertains to the year 2015-2016 where for a total amount of Rs.400 crores under the said RE Scheme no tenders were invited and the money was misappropriated by the authorities of the Public Works Department (PWD), Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the contractors. It has further been alleged that no works were executed in the field and if any work has been executed, the same is sub-standard. The petitioners claim that every year substantial amounts are sanctioned and there is no utilization and, therefore, the petitioners have made a prayer to institute an investigation by the CBI by registering a criminal case. It has further been alleged that no works were executed in the field and if any work has been executed, the same is sub-standard. The petitioners claim that every year substantial amounts are sanctioned and there is no utilization and, therefore, the petitioners have made a prayer to institute an investigation by the CBI by registering a criminal case. In the present PIL, apart from 67 numbers of Government respondents, 11 numbers of private parties have been arraigned as respondents. 4. The petitioners have annexed the earlier order dated 04.11.2014, passed by this Court in PIL No.64/2014. The administrative approval for more than 400 crores under the Revised Estimate Scheme for the year 2015-2016 has also been annexed along with the statement issued by the Finance Department. The guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission vide office order dated 05.07.2007 pursuant to the direction of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagar Nigam, Meerut Vs. Al Faheem Meat Exports (P) Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 382 have been relied upon by the petitioners wherein emphasis have been laid down that distribution of State Largesse is to be done in a fair and transparent manner by adhering to the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Certain instructions requiring invitation of tenders have also been relied upon by the petitioners. 5. The prayer made in the petition is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference: - wxyz " In the premises aforesaid your lordship would be pleased to admit this petition call for the records issue rule calling upon the respondents as to show cause why a writ of Mandamus or Certiorari or any other appropriate writ should not be issued to the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as to show cause why the Hon''ble Court shall not give a direction to enquire the entire matter by CBI under the supervision of the Hon''ble Court and submit the report before the Hon''ble Court as there are huge financial misappropriation of Rs. more than 400 Crores in the Public Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the Revise Estimate (RE) Scheme for the year 2015-2016 and to register a Criminal Case against the erring Officials, Politicians and Contractors under the appropriate law of the land and/or your lordship may pass any other order(s) as your lordship may deem fit and proper. more than 400 Crores in the Public Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the Revise Estimate (RE) Scheme for the year 2015-2016 and to register a Criminal Case against the erring Officials, Politicians and Contractors under the appropriate law of the land and/or your lordship may pass any other order(s) as your lordship may deem fit and proper. zyxw wxyz -AND- zyxw wxyz In the interim, your lordship may direct the authorities of State that no further Revised Estimate (RE) shall be launched and/or your lordship may pass any other order(s) as your lordship may deem fit and proper." zyxw 6. The prayers/claims of the writ petitioners have received stiff resistance from the contesting respondents. 7. The respondent No.5, who is the Commissioner of PWD has filed an affidavit-inopposition dated 15.05.2017. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated that envisaging a situation with urgent nature of works, Section 2.2 of the CPWD Works Manual, 2014 permits such works to be done by doing away with the requirement of tender and all such works have been done bona fide. However, rests of the work have been done by calling for tenders. It has also been stated that the direction of this Court dated 04.12.2015, passed in Review Petition No.44/2015 has been fully complied with. It was further stated that there is factual error in the figures quoted by the petitioners and in fact, the allocation was not Rs.400 crores for the year 2015-2016 but Rs.362.81 crores, which is inclusive of the State share allocation of Rs.28.95 crores for ongoing centrally sponsored schemes of NLCPR of the Ministry of DoNER and projects were executed by calling tenders. The allegations of misappropriation or misutilization have been categorically denied in the said affidavit-in-opposition. 8. A similar affidavit-in-opposition dated 28.03.2017 has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.8 to 18, 39, 40, 62, 63 and 65 denying the allegations of the writ petitioners. 9. A similar affidavit-in-opposition dated 11.05.2017 has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.19 to 29 and 66 denying the allegations of the writ petitioners. 10. An affidavit in opposition dated 28.03.2017 has also been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.30 to 36, 43, 44, 46 to 54 and 61 through the Chief Engineer, PWD, Western Zone denying the allegation of the petitioners and stating that no amounts have been misutilized or misappropriated. 11. 10. An affidavit in opposition dated 28.03.2017 has also been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.30 to 36, 43, 44, 46 to 54 and 61 through the Chief Engineer, PWD, Western Zone denying the allegation of the petitioners and stating that no amounts have been misutilized or misappropriated. 11. The respondent Nos.41, 42, 45, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 64, and 67 have filed an affidavitin-opposition on 15.05.2017 wherein a similar stand was taken. In the said affidavit, the list of the works under the four zones has also been annexed. 12. An additional-affidavit was filed by the State respondents on 23.03.2019 annexing four numbers of charts of different zones, namely, Eastern, Central-B, Western, Central-A, PWD giving details of the various works for which tenders were floated and so far as those for which tenders could not be invited, reasons have been specifically mentioned. A perusal of the reasons would show that the works were mostly urgent in nature where local contractors/villagers were involved, sanctioning at the end of the financial year requiring immediate utilization, executing works departmentally etc. The aforesaid reasons, apart from appearing to be germane and relevant are also saved by the exception carved out by this Court while disposing of the earlier PIL No.64/2014. For ready reference, the relevant part of the earlier judgment dated 04.11.2014, passed in PIL No.64/2014 is extracted hereinbelow: - wxyz " While it is true that works of the State or its instrumentalities should normally be executed through public auction/public tender by inviting tenders from eligible persons by giving wide publicity to the tender process to ensure fairness and transparency in Government dealings, the same cannot be said to be a totally inflexible rule proving for no exception. In certain exceptional circumstances such as for repair of damages caused due to natural calamities and emergencies, adherence to tender process may not be a feasible proposition as it may lead to delay thereby adversely affecting the public interest. In fact, clause 14:1 of the CPWD Works Manual, 2014 provides that in urgent cases or when the interest of the works so demand or it is more expedient to do so, works may be awarded without calling for tenders after approval of the competent authority. Clause 14:1 may cover cases for repair of roads, buildings etc. on urgent basis which got damaged because of extensive rain and flood during the monsoon season. Clause 14:1 may cover cases for repair of roads, buildings etc. on urgent basis which got damaged because of extensive rain and flood during the monsoon season. We accept the explanation furnished by the State that those projects were required to be executed expeditiously because of over-riding public interest for which tenders were not floated as it would have delayed the works. We also take note of the fact that most of these projects involve comparatively lesser amount." zyxw wxyz Further the value of the works wherein tenders were not called for are also seen to be of lower value. zyxw 13. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the petitioners against the affidavit-inopposition of the respondent No.5 wherein it has been stated that public money cannot be misused in the name of urgent works and, therefore, a direction for CBI investigation should be issued by this Court. 14. On a query which had arisen during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No.5 had filed an additional-affidavit stating that the Arunachal Pradesh Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2005 has no manner of application in the present matter. 15. We have heard Shri J Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioners. We have also heard Shri D Soki, the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate representing the State respondents. 16. Shri Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the mandate of law requiring allotment of public works by either NIT or auction has been done away with. Such action is in gross violation of the doctrine of fairness and transparency in matters of allotment of State Largesse infringing the rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission based on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Nagar Nigam, Meerut (supra) have been grossly violated. It is further submitted that the directions of this Court passed in the earlier PIL No.64/2014 have also been violated. 17. The petitioners'' counsel has also referred to the chart annexed in the affidavit-inopposition containing the details of the works and submits that the allegations stood substantiated as many works were found to be allotted without calling for tenders. The learned counsel accordingly submits that the prayer for initiating an inquiry by the CBI is fully justified. 17. The petitioners'' counsel has also referred to the chart annexed in the affidavit-inopposition containing the details of the works and submits that the allegations stood substantiated as many works were found to be allotted without calling for tenders. The learned counsel accordingly submits that the prayer for initiating an inquiry by the CBI is fully justified. In support of his submissions made, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court: - wxyz 1) Nagar Nigam, Meerut Vs. All Faheem Meat Exports (P) Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 382 ; and zyxw wxyz 2) Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida & Anr., (2011) 6 SCC 508 ; zyxw 18. In the case of Nagar Nigam, Meerut (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows: - wxyz "13. This Court time and again has emphasized the need to maintain transparency in grant of public contracts. Ordinarily, maintenance of transparency as also compliance of Article 14 of the Constitution would inter alia be ensured by holding public auction upon issuance of advertisement in the well known newspapers. That has not been done in this case. Although the Nagar Nigam had advertised the contract, the High Court has directed that it should be given for 10 years to a particular party (respondent No. 1). This was clearly illegal. zyxw wxyz 14. It is well settled that ordinarily the State or its instrumentalities should not give contracts by private negotiation but by open public auction/tender after wide publicity. In this case the contract has not only been given by way of private negotiation, but the negotiation has been carried out by the High Court itself, which is impermissible. zyxw wxyz 15. We have no doubt that in rare and exceptional cases, having regard to the nature of the trade or largesse or for some other good reason, a contract may have to be granted by private negotiation, but normally that should not be done as it shakes the public confidence. zyxw wxyz 16. zyxw wxyz 15. We have no doubt that in rare and exceptional cases, having regard to the nature of the trade or largesse or for some other good reason, a contract may have to be granted by private negotiation, but normally that should not be done as it shakes the public confidence. zyxw wxyz 16. The law is well-settled that contracts by the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies must be normally granted through public auction/public tender by inviting tenders from eligible persons and the notification of the public-auction or inviting tenders should be advertised in well known dailies having wide circulation in the locality with all relevant details such as date, time and place of auction, subject-matter of auction, technical specifications, estimated cost, earnest money Deposit, etc. The award of Government contracts through public-auction/public tender is to ensure transparency in the public procurement, to maximise economy and efficiency in Government procurement, to promote healthy competition among the tenderers, to provide for fair and equitable treatment of all tenderers, and to eliminate irregularities, interference and corrupt practices by the authorities concerned. This is required by Article 14 of the Constitution. However, in rare and exceptional cases, for instance during natural calamities and emergencies declared by the Government; where the procurement is possible from a single source only; where the supplier or contractor has exclusive rights in respect of the goods or services and no reasonable alternative or substitute exists; where the auction was held on several dates but there were no bidders or the bids offered were too low, etc., this normal rule may be departed from and such contracts may be awarded through ''private negotiations''. (See Ram and Shyam Company vs. State of Haryana)." zyxw 19. In the case of Noida Entrepreneurs Association (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows: - wxyz "39. State actions are required to be non-arbitrary and justified on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. Action of the State or its instrumentality must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. Functioning of a "democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination". The rule of law prohibits arbitrary action and commands the authority concerned to act in accordance with law. Action of the State or its instrumentality must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. Functioning of a "democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination". The rule of law prohibits arbitrary action and commands the authority concerned to act in accordance with law. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should neither be suggestive of discrimination, nor even apparently give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is antithesis to the decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. zyxw wxyz 40. The Public Trust Doctrine is a part of the law of the land. The doctrine has grown from Article 21 of the Constitution. In essence, the action/order of the State or State instrumentality would stand vitiated if it lacks bona fides, as it would only be a case of colourable exercise of power. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. (Vide Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd.v. State of West Bengal21 , Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The InternationalAirport Authority of India22, Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala FinancialCorporation, (1988) AIR SC 157 ; 23 Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. etc. v. Stateof U.P. & Ors., Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of UP24and M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd.v. Radhey Shyam Sahu 25." zyxw 20. Per contra, Shri D Soki, the learned State Counsel has submitted that a writ petitioner has to stand on his own legs while trying to make out a case. Nowhere in the writ petition any specific allegations have been made regarding any particular work where the due process of law has not been followed. The allegations are absolutely vague and abstract and the petitioners are busy bodies with the only intention to destabilize the works under the Department. In support of his submissions, the learned State Counsel relied upon the following decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court: - wxyz 1) Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of WB., (2004) 3 SCC 349 ; zyxw wxyz 2) Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam Vs. Union of India., (2009) 7 SCC 561 ; and zyxw wxyz 3) State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639 . zyxw 21. State of WB., (2004) 3 SCC 349 ; zyxw wxyz 2) Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam Vs. Union of India., (2009) 7 SCC 561 ; and zyxw wxyz 3) State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639 . zyxw 21. In the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows: - wxyz "14. In the instant case, in the writ petition, an impression had been given that some drastic steps would be taken by the authorities which would cause great hardship to a large number of persons. However, the writ petition did not disclose the factum of how many persons had already vacated their houses and handed over the possession of their land. It was contended that urgent measures were required to be taken by the Court in order to mitigate the sufferings of the people. In view of the fact that there was no material before the Court to adjudicate upon the issues involved therein, the High Court passed the order dated 30.3.2007 directing the GRA to submit the report on the rehabilitation work already done and still to be done; and to disclose the consequences of the closure of radial gates of the dam and blocking of the sluice gate of the dam on the people residing in the area which would be submerged. zyxw wxyz 16. In view of the above, it is evident that there were no pleadings before the High Court on the basis of which the writ petition could be entertained/decided. Thus, it was liable to be rejected at the threshold for the reason that the writ petition suffered for want of proper pleadings and material to substantiate the averments/allegations contained therein. Even in the case of a PIL, such a course could not be available to the writ petitioners." zyxw 22. In the case of Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows: - wxyz "114.The question of locus standi in the matter of awarding the contract has been considered by this Court in BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333 . This Court, after review of law on the point, has made following observations in paragraph 88 of the judgment:- zyxw wxyz "88. This Court, after review of law on the point, has made following observations in paragraph 88 of the judgment:- zyxw wxyz "88. It will be seen that whenever the Court has interfered and given directions while entertaining PIL it has mainly been where there has been an element of violation of Article 21 or of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to court due to some disadvantage. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the courts. We may, however, add that public interest litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. No doubt a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a court of law, but, a public interest litigation at the behest of a stranger ought not to be entertained. Such a litigation cannot per se be on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden, unless the court is satisfied that there has been violation of Article 21 and the persons adversely affected are unable to approach the court." From the passage quoted above it is clear that the only ground on which a person can maintain a PIL is where there has been an element of violation of Article 21 or human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to the court due to some disadvantage." zyxw wxyz "170. Normally, there is always a presumption that the Governmental action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the court by proper and adequate material. The court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or against public interest because there are large number of considerations, which necessarily weigh with the Government in taking an action." zyxw 23. In the case of State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows: - wxyz "8. The court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or against public interest because there are large number of considerations, which necessarily weigh with the Government in taking an action." zyxw 23. In the case of State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows: - wxyz "8. It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the averments made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. zyxw wxyz 9. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana 1 this Court has observed as under:(SCC p. 543, para 13) zyxw wxyz "13 ..In our opinion, when a point, which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counteraffidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or written statement, the facts and not the evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it." (Emphasis added) zyxw wxyz A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat2, Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan Singh3, and Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti. v. Union of India. zyxw wxyz 13. Strict rules of pleading may not apply in PIL, however, there must be sufficient material in the petition on the basis of which Court may proceed. The PIL litigant has to lay a factual foundation for his averments on the basis of which such a person claims the reliefs. The information furnished by him should not be vague and indefinite. Strict rules of pleading may not apply in PIL, however, there must be sufficient material in the petition on the basis of which Court may proceed. The PIL litigant has to lay a factual foundation for his averments on the basis of which such a person claims the reliefs. The information furnished by him should not be vague and indefinite. Proper pleadings are necessary to meet the requirements of the principles of natural justice. Even in PIL, the litigant cannot approach the Court to have a fishing or roving enquiry. He cannot claim to have a chance to establish his claim. However, the technicalities of the rules of pleading cannot be made applicable vigorously. Pleadings prepared by a layman must be construed generously as he lacks the standard of accuracy and precision particularly when a legal wrong is caused to a determinate class. (Vide: A. Hamsaveni v. State of T.N.8, Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of WB 9,Prabir Kumar Das v. State of Orissa10 and A. Abdul Farook v. Municipal Council,Perambalur 11." zyxw 24. By referring to the various affidavits-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent authorities, it is submitted that the State has not violated any law while making any allotment of works under the RE Scheme for the year 2015-2016. The directions of this Court passed in the earlier PIL instituted on behalf of the same organization to which the petitioners belong have been fully complied with and in fact, this Court had taken note of certain situations wherein calling for tenders was not practicable. The further directions passed by this Court in the review petition have been fully complied with and, therefore, no case for grant of relief has been able to be made out by the petitioners. 25. The rival submissions made by the parties have been duly considered. 26. This Court has noted that in the writ petition, the allegations are absolutely vague. An omnibus statement has been made that there has been misutilization of the funds under the Revised Estimate Scheme of the year 2015-2016 wherein works were allotted without calling for tenders. No particular work has been mentioned in the pleadings. Though the requirement of locus to make a challenge in a Public Interest Litigation is relatively flexible, the bona fide of the petitioners is a sine qua non for entertaining a writ petition in the nature of PIL. 27. No particular work has been mentioned in the pleadings. Though the requirement of locus to make a challenge in a Public Interest Litigation is relatively flexible, the bona fide of the petitioners is a sine qua non for entertaining a writ petition in the nature of PIL. 27. We have noted that in the various affidavits-in-opposition filed by the respondent authorities, the details of the work of the four zones have been given by preparing charts. Instead of discharging the burden by the petitioners to make specific allegations and substantial those, the learned counsel for the petitioners had tried to rely upon the said charts in an attempt to substantiate the plea that tenders for certain works were indeed not called for. However, on an examination of the charts, it is seen that for the works where tenders were not invited, justifications have been given by the Department which, amongst others, are urgency, nature of the work, involvement of local villagers, lapse of fund etc. Such justifications, in our opinion appear to be germane and relevant and there is nothing on record to disbelieve such justifications. It is also not the case of the petitioners that the funds in question have not been utilized and the petitioners are only questioning the mode of such utilization by making vague allegations. 28. The powers and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are plenary in nature and the restrictions are only self-imposed. However, at the same time, we are reminded that such powers are not to be exercised to make a roving inquiry into questions of fact which are disputed. It is seen that the petitioners instead of attempting to independently to make out a case have been trying to rely upon the defence of the respondents. It has already been noted that the respondent authorities while making a candid disclosure of the facts have put adequate justification for making allotment of the works where tenders could not be floated. It is a settled law that normally a Writ Court would not go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the justifications which otherwise appear to be reasonable. 29. In the case of Nagar Nigam, Meerut (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has also recognized that under certain exceptional cases, allotment by tender may not be possible and in such cases, there has to be justiceable reasons. 29. In the case of Nagar Nigam, Meerut (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has also recognized that under certain exceptional cases, allotment by tender may not be possible and in such cases, there has to be justiceable reasons. Further, in the cases relied by the respondents, namely, Ashok Kumar Pandey (supra), Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam (supra) and Narmada Bachao Andolan (supra), the parameters have been laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, which amongst others include locus, pleadings and bona fide and in the present case those parameters have not been seen to be fulfilled by the petitioners. 30. We have also noted that this Court in the order dated 04.11.2014, passed in PIL No.64/2014 had taken into consideration certain factors under which allotment by calling for tenders was not practicable. We have also noted that the respondent authorities in the affidavit have made a categorical stand that the subsequent directions of this Court dated 04.12.2015, passed in the connected Review Petition No.44/2015, which the writ petitioners have suppressed in the writ petition, have been fully complied with. The said statement has not been controverted by the petitioners in the reply-affidavit. 31. Directing a CBI inquiry by this Court cannot be a routine manner. Such directions can be issued only when an exceptional case is able to be made out. However, in the instant case, as has been held earlier, vague allegations have been made apart from there being disputes on facts. 32. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that no case for exercise of the extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, the Public Interest Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.