Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Alleging ₹16.6 Crore 'Fraudulent' Bank Guarantees In Twin Tunnel Project
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking investigation by CBI or SIT into alleged fraudulent bank guarantees accepted by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) from a private company, Megha Engineering Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL), for the construction of a Twin Tube Road Tunnel between Thane and Borivali worth around Rs.16,600.40 crore.
A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre remarked that the petitioner's conduct was mala fide and that the petition suppressed material facts. The Court stated “The petitioner is admittedly guilty of making inappropriate tweets which scandalize the court. The petitioner is also guilty of suppression of facts. The instant PIL has not been filed bona fide. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to examine the claim of the petitioner on merits. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this PIL.”
The PIL filed by senior journalist, V Ravi Praksash, alleged that a foreign entity issued fraudulent Bank Guarantees (BRs) in favour of MMRDA on behalf of MEIL. He alleged that MEIL gave 6 fraudulent BRs for the Twin Tube Road Tunnel project and that the BRs were a sham created to commit fraud to obtain public funds without providing any secured guarantee.
The petitioner also alleged quid pro quo arrangements between MEIL and political parties in relation to electoral bonds. He thus prayed for an investigation by the CBI or SIT into the issue and also sought to direct the MMRDA to terminate the contract awarded to MEIL for the project.
The PIL was strongly opposed by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Khambata appearing for MEIL, the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta and the Advocate General of Maharashtra Birendra Saraf.
During previous hearing, MEIL argued that the petitioner suppressed material facts by not disclosing prior shareholder disputes, civil and criminal disputes with MEIL. Further, referring to a tweet made by the petitioner, MEIL 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 and scandalised the authority of the Court.
In response, Advocate Prashant Bhushan representing the petitioner stated that the X post was inappropriate and said that it was taken down in five days. 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.
Considering the submissions of the parties, the High Court noted that the conduct of the petitioner in publishing the tweets after mentioning the matter before the Court was not bona fide and said the tweets scandalized the Court. However, the Court took note of Advocate Bhushan's statement that the tweets were inappropriate and that the petitioner took down the tweets after advise from the counsel.
On the respondent-parties' submissions that the petitioner should be held guilty of criminal contempt, the Court remarked the tweets of the petitioner were contemptuous in nature, however, it decided not to initiate any contempt proceedings.
"The tweets of the petitioner are against the institution of administration of justice. 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.”
On the contention of suppression of facts, the Court noted that the petitioner suppressed facts by not disclosing the details of the litigation pending between him and MEIL. It stated that the petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands.
The Court also referred to Rule 5 of Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010, as per which a petitioner is required to furnish the details of any civil, criminal or revenue litigation involving the petitioner or any of the petitioners which has or could have a legal nexus with the issues involved in the PIL. Here, the Court noted that litigation is pending between the parties with respect to the contract in question and thus the petitioner did not disclose all the necessary details.
With these observations, the Court dismissed the PIL.
Case title: V. Ravi Prakash vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority & Ors.