In a significant development, the Supreme Court has opted not to intervene in the Uttarakhand High Court's decision to probe the allocation of a parking contract by the state's irrigation department. Expressing astonishment at the state government's resistance to a CBI investigation, the apex court has underscored its dedication to maintaining transparency and the rule of law in governmental processes.

A panel of justices, Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, rejected the appeal lodged by the Uttarakhand government, emphasizing a commitment to allowing the investigation to proceed without hindrance. The bench questioned the state government's decision to appeal against the high court's directive, stating, "While we comprehend the contractor approaching the court, it's astonishing that the state government has chosen to appeal against the high court's directive."

The Supreme Court expressed confidence in the impartiality of the CBI to conduct the investigation without being swayed by provisional remarks made by the high court. The bench stated, "After hearing the Solicitor General and senior counsel representing the petitioners, we have determined that there is no justification for intervening with the contested order instructing an investigation through the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the state government in the proceedings, where the Supreme Court addressed a petition contesting the high court's order nullifying a parking contract granted by the irrigation department on October 20, 2023. The high court deemed the awarded contract unlawful and in violation of tender conditions.

In its order, the high court expressed concern over the behavior of implicated officials allegedly colluding with two companies owned by real brothers. The court recommended an investigation by an independent body such as the CBI, stating, "Upon reviewing the evidence on record, this court concludes that the present case aligns with the principles established by the constitution bench of the Supreme Court."

The high court's decision stemmed from a petition challenging the parking contract granted on government land in Haridwar. The contract, initially awarded for 400 days in the first phase and subsequently for 229 days in the second phase, raised concerns about deviations from tender conditions. The petitioner argued that there was no documentation to substantiate claims of extending the tender period during the Covid pandemic as per the tender notice.