Bombay High Court junks PIL against bank guarantees in ₹16k crore Borivali-Thane tunnel project

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a probe into the bank guarantees given by Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL) for the ₹16 crore Borivali-Thane Twin Tube Tunnel project. [V Ravi Prakash v MMRDA and Ors].The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre dismissed the plea after finding petitioner-Ravi Prakash's conduct to be lacking in bona fides. The Court specifically took issue with his "inappropriate tweets" on the writ petition posted soon after the mentioning of the matter before the High Court, noting that they "tantamount to scandalizing the Court.""In view of preceding analysis, PIL is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs," the Court said.While the Court found that the petitioner’s tweets could amount to criminal contempt, it chose not to initiate contempt proceedings after noting that the controversial tweets had been "taken down"promptly..The PIL filed in October 2024 by senior journalist Ravi Prakash raised concerns about the legitimacy of the bank guarantee given by MEIL for the Twin Tube Tunnel project between Borivali and Thane. The petitioner alleged that fraudulent bank guarantees were issued in favour of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) for the project. The plea sought an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe these claims. MEIL, however, rejected these allegations, stating that the PIL lacked merit and was based on misleading information..MEIL, represented by Senior Advocates Darius Khambata and Mukul Rohatgi, contended that the PIL should be rejected as Prakash lacked standing to file the petition and had failed to present a valid case. They argued that the allegations were driven by personal grievances and were not of genuine public concern..MMRDA, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, also supported MEIL, asserting that the petition was an abuse of legal proceedings and could set a dangerous precedent if allowed..Appearing for the petitioner, Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the PIL was founded on legitimate issues related to the fairness of the tendering process for the tunnel project.Bhushan raised concerns over the alleged undue advantage MEIL had gained, particularly with regard to the bank guarantees and the company’s financial connections, such as its purchase of electoral bonds from multiple political parties. Bhushan asserted that these matters were of significant public interest and merited judicial scrutiny..While dismissing the plea, the Court pointed out that the petitioner was "guilty of suppression of facts" for not disclosing ongoing litigation with MEIL. It emphasised that Prakash had failed to mention important details about his previous legal conflicts with MEIL, including several defamation cases. This, according to the Court, was a violation of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010, specifically Rules 5 and 7, which requires every litigant who files a PIL to disclose details about related litigation and personal interest. .Advocates Neha Rathi, Kajal Giri and Arjun Kadam assisted Bhushan for the petitioner.Advocate General Birendra Saraf appeared along with SG Mehta for MMRDA. They were assisted by Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Jay Sanklecha, Abhishek Karnik, Aditya Krishna and Payal Vardhan.Saraf and Additional Government Pleader Pooja Patil appeared for the State.Senior Advocate Vivek Reddy appeared along with Khambata and Rohtagi for MEIL. They were assisted by Advocates Shrinivas Bobde, Rohan Dakshini, Vishesh Malviya, Nikita Mishra, Janaki Garde, Tejas Popat, Rakshita Singh, Raghav Dharmadhikari, Himanshu Saraswat and K Pratik Reddy, instructed by Rashmikant & Partners.Advocates Amit Ambu Satyarthi and Varun Chugh, instructed by Alph Legal Consultants, appeared for Euro Exim Bank.Advocates Mayur Khandeparkar, Pravin H Padave and Bijish Balan, instructed by ASR and Associates, appeared for State Bank of India.Senior Advocate Ram Apte along with Advocates Sagar Patil and Suruchi Rokade, instructed by Mayuresh Legal, represented the Union of India..[Read Order]