Bombay High Court dismisses PIL against ₹16 crore Mumbai-Thane tunnel project 

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (March 18, 2025) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Hyderabad-based journalist, V. Ravi Prakash, seeking a probe by Special Investigation Team (SIT) or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into an alleged fraud bank guarantees furnished by Megha Engineering Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL) which were accepted by Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA). The firm was awarded a ₹ 16,600 crore contract for the Borivali-Thane underground twin tunnel project. 

A Division Bench of judges, Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre pronounced the order, “In view of the preceding analysis, the Public Interest Litigation is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The interim application also stands disposed of.”  

The petition said that the challenge to the bank guarantees is made on the ground that the same have been issued by the Euro Exim Bank, which is neither a scheduled bank nor a commercial bank, approved by the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioner also sought a direction to the MMRDA to cancel the contract awarded to MEIL.  

On May 12, 2023, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued for construction of a twin tube road tunnel between Thane and Borivali in Mumbai. The MEIL won the bid on May 8, 2023, and furnished a performance bank guarantee of ₹92.67 crores and ₹ 88.18 crores, issued by Canara Bank for the project. The MEIL has also furnished the performance bank guarantees issued by Euro Exim Bank. 

The petitioner said that he learnt that the bank guarantees are fraudulent, as the Euro Exim Bank is neither a scheduled bank nor a commercial bank, approved by the Reserve Bank of India. 

On February 20, 2025, the PIL petition was listed for orders on admission, however, a preliminary objection was filed with regard to the maintainability of the petition and the petitioner was granted time to file reply to the same. Mr. Prakash had filed the PIL on October 23, 2024. 

Senior Advocates Darius Khambata and Mukul Rohatgi who represented MEIL, the petitioner, contended that Mr. Prakash had posted tweets on February 12, 2025, by making egregious allegations against the Government authorities as well as this Court and has deliberately scandalised the Court.  

“It is urged that the petitioner has committed criminal contempt. It is submitted that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed material facts regarding prior shareholder disputes, civil and criminal disputes with MEIL, which clearly shows that this petition is motivated and not bona fide,” MEIL contended.  

Mr. Khambata also submitted that the PIL should not be entertained as it had failed to present a valid case and were driven by personal grievances and were not of genuine public concern. 

Supporting the MEIL arguments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing the Union Government, asserted that the petition was an abuse of legal proceedings and could set a dangerous precedent if allowed. “The petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence as the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. Scandalizing the Court is serious misdemeanour and must result in serious consequences.” 

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the PIL was founded on legitimate issues related to the fairness of the tendering process for the tunnel project and these matters were of significant public interest and merited judicial scrutiny. 

After hearing both sides, the Bench observed, “The petitioner has not disclosed the details of the litigation pending between the parties and has not approached the Court with clean hands. The petitioner, therefore, is guilty of suppression of facts. The petitioner is admittedly guilty of making inappropriate tweets which scandalize the court. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this PIL.” 

The court order read, “In our opinion, the tweet scandalises the Court. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has committed criminal contempt. However, the Counsel for the petitioner, in his submissions, has termed the tweets to be inappropriate. The petitioner has acted upon the advice of his counsel and has taken down the tweets from the social media platform within a period of five days from the advice given to him. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, we do not propose to initiate any contempt proceedings against the petitioner.”