New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave a clean chit to Chhattisgarh chief minister Raman Singh and his son Abhishek Singh in connection with alleged kickbacks in the purchase of AgustaWestland helicopters ten years ago.

A bench of Justices Adarsh K Goel and Uday U Lalit dismissed a batch of petitions, which had alleged irregularities in purchase of the choppers.

The PILs, by NGO Swaraj Abhiyan and others, claimed that the Raman Singh government paid excess money in the purchase between 2006 and 2008, and this illicit amount was later transferred to bank accounts in British Virgin Islands (UK), linked his son Abhishek.

The court had sought original records relating to the purchase and after hearing arguments of both sides, the bench held there is no evidence of any wrongdoing.

It maintained that the state government was entitled to make a choice to purchase the helicopter and such a decision could not be questioned when there was nothing on record to show that the helicopters could have been procured for a lesser price.

"No person claiming to give a better deal has come forward. Thus, in absence of clear evidence that loss was caused to public exchequer by way of commission

payment to Sharp Ocean Investments Limited which was only a route to send the payment to the son of the Chief Minister, interference by this Court is not called for," ruled the bench.

The court underlined that" there is no material to prima facie hold that beneficiary of the transaction was Abhishek Singh."

About Abhishek's alleged account in BV Island, the Court stated:" Son of the Chief Minister is not personally a party. Disclosure in Panama Papers is a matter which is still under investigation by Multi-Agency Group constituted by the Government of India on April 4, 2016, which is to give its report to the Special Investigating Team constituted by this Court vide order dated July 4, 2011, in Writ Petition (Civil)No. 176 of 2009."

About the accusations of procedural irregularities, the bench stated that the apex court did not need to go into these issues when the Court "broadly finds that no case is made out for interference by this Court for issuing a direction as sought in absence of an allegation of extraneous consideration being substantiated".

The court also clarified that "a petition under Article 32, without a clear element of public interest, cannot be entertained at the instance of a political rival merely on account of an alleged procedural irregularity in the decision making which can be challenged at an appropriate forum by the aggrieved party."