MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought a probe into a Rs 1700 crore bank guarantee issued by Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd (MEIL) as the winning bidder in a “Rs 16000 crore” Borivali-Thane twin tunnel project, after the company raised preliminary issues of its maintainability.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre pronounced the judgment after MEIL, through Senior Counsel Darius Khambata, sought dismissal of the PIL on the preliminary grounds of its maintainability. At a recently concluded hearing, Khambata and four other senior counsel sought dismissal of the PIL, with four of them calling for contempt action against the petitioner, one Hyderabad resident V Ravi Prakash, and urged the bench to set out detailed standards for filing PILs “to weed out frivolous litigation.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, and Maharashtra Advocate General Birendra Saraf all argued that 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 cited Supreme Court rulings to argue that while dealing with PILs, the HC must first be satisfied with the public interest element, verify the bona fides of the petitioner, and “must discourage busybodies from filing frivolous PILs by imposing exemplary costs.” Khambata also said the HC rules on PILs were flouted by suppressing another petition between the same parties. Senior Counsel Prashant Bhushan, representing 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 a 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 showed a “lack of faith in the court.”
Bhushan, in his submissions via VC, agreed that the tweet was “inappropriate” and said it was removed after five days. But Bhushan also stated that if the HC finds the litigant inappropriate to pursue the “public interest cause,” it could always, under the rules, appoint an amicus curiae (friend of the court) to carry it forward. He mentioned that 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 the probe, in fact, be widened “to include the large-scale scams.” Mehta rejoined to say the bid was awarded since it was the highest bidder and the bank guarantee was “authenticated” by two scheduled banks and dismissed the wild allegations.
Khambata said terming the tweet ‘inappropriate’ now is an “afterthought” and would set a wrong precedent if people are allowed to file cases and then say ‘replace me.’