Bombay High Court Reserves Verdict On Maintainability Of PIL Alleging ₹16.6 Crore 'Fraudulent' Bank Guarantees In Twin Tunnel Project

The PIL filed by journalist V Ravi Prakash alleged that Megha Engineering Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL) gave fraudulent Bank Guarantees (BRs) for the project and that a foreign bank not recognized by the RBI issued fraudulent BRs in favour of MMRDA on behalf of MEIL.

During the hearing Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Khambata appearing for MEIL, the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta and the Advocate General of Maharashtra Birendra Saraf raised serious objections to the maintainability of the PIL.

In its IA, MEIL argued that the petitioner suppressed material facts and filed the PIL for personal vendetta. It was stated that the petitioner suppressed the ongoing shareholder disputes between him and MEIL. It was stated that in a defamation suit, a District Court had granted ad-interim injunction against Tolivelugu channel, which it stated was a part of the petitioner's group of channels.

MEIL thus argued by not disclosing any pending disputes with the MEIL, the petitioner suppressed facts and filed the petition with oblique personal motives.

Referring to a tweet made by the petitioner, MEIL further submitted that the petitioner committed criminal defamation by making a X post/tweet on the case after it was mentioned in the Court. MEIL stated that the post, which questioned whether the judiciary would hold its ground or crumble under political influence, celebrity cadre and money trail, was contemptuous in nature. It was stated that the tweet scandalised the authority of the Court and amounted to criminal contempt.

MEIL also contended that a PIL cannot be entertained against government tenders and public work contracts.

SG Mehta in addition to submitting that the PIL was malafide and raising objections to the conduct of the petitioner emphasized that the tender was a public tender and awarded to MEIL as it was the highest bidder. In response to claim of fraudulent BRs, he stated that the BR for advance payment security was authenticated by SBI and the State Bank of Maharashtra. He further said that the performance security guarantee was issued by Canara Bank.

AG Saraf too submitted that the petitioner committed criminal contempt and prejudiced the sanctity of the court.

In response, Advocate Prashant Bhushan representing the petitioner acknowledged that the X post was inappropriate and said that it was taken down in five days. He stated that in a PIL, if the Court does not find the petitioner to be an appropriate person to institute the case, but believes the cause to be genuine, it can appoint an amicus curare.

With respect to suppression of facts, he said that as per High Court rules, the petitioner is only supposed to disclose litigation which has a nexus raised in the petition. He stated that the defamations against the petitioner were made by powerful companies for his efforts to expose corruption.

He alleged that Euro Exim Bank was a fraudulent bank, having issued numerous BRs to Indian companies, resulting in the looting of public funds. In response, MEIL questioned why the petitioner had only included their company in the petition and not other companies involved. It further reiterated that the petitioner had no credentials and scandalized the court through his conduct.

The respondents thus prayed for the dismissal of the PIL on grounds of locus and maintainability.

After hearing the parties for over two hours, a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre reserved the IA for orders.

Case title: V. Ravi Prakash vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority & Ors