MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday reserved for orders a plea made by Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd, on the maintainability of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed last year to seek a probe into a Rs 1700 crore bank guarantee issued as a winning bidder in the “Rs 16000 crore” Borivali-Thane twin tunnel project.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre said it would pass orders after a day long hearing where five senior counsel made detailed submissions, four of them calling for contempt action against the petitioner, one Hyderabad resident V Ravi Prakash and calling on the bench to set out detailed standards for filing of PIL “to weed out frivolous litigation’’.
Former Additional solicitor general Darius Khambata for MEIL seeking dismissal of the PIL as did Solictor general Tushar Mehta, former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and Maharashtra Advocate General Birendra Saraf. All of them said the litigant by his tweet posted last month after the HC agreed to hear the matter—later deleted—attempted to “scandalise’’ the judiciary and cannot be countenanced.
Khambata questioned PIL’s very maintainability. He cited Supreme Court rulings to argue that while dealing with PIL, the HC must first be satisfied of the public interest element, verify bona fides of the petitioner, and “must discourage busybodies to file frivolous PIL, by imposing exemplary costs…’’ Khambata also said the HC rules on PIL were flouted by supressing another petition between the same parties. Senior counsel Prashant Bhushan for Prakash said “no rules were flouted’’ since the other was not related to the cause raised in the PIL.
Khambata rejoined to say it augurs well for a PIL litigant to “show candour’’ and make all disclosures.
Mehta made detailed submission to argue the petition was a “misuse of the salutary process of PIL’’.
Saraf submitted that the tweet was “to create a public opinion against the parties to the petition’ and shown “lack of faith in the court’’.
Bhushan, agreed that the tweet was “inappropriate’’ and said it was removed after five days. Bhushan said if the HC finds the litigant inappropriate to pursue the “public interest cause’’, it can, under the rules, appoint an amicus curiae (friend of court) to carry it forward. He said the bank guarantees were by a non-scheduled bank, against the bid documents.
Bhushan said the bid was awarded after huge sums were donated in the electoral bonds and sought that probe, in fact, be widened “to include the large scale scams’’.
Mehta rejoined to say bid was awarded since it was the highest bidder and the Bank Guarantee was “authenticated’’ by two scheduled banks and said wild allegations.
Khambata said terming the tweet ‘inappropriate’’ now is an “after thought’’ and would set a wrong precedent if people are allowed to file cases and then say ‘replace me’/