Mumbai: Supreme Court on Monday expressed surprise that MMRDA considered Larsen & Toubro (L&T) technically non-responsive for the Thane-Ghodbunder-Bhayander twin tunnel and elevated road project despite the construction major having executed iconic large public infrastructure projects.While hearing L&T’s challenge against Bombay high court vacation bench’s dismissal on May 20 of its petitions seeking a stay on the opening of financial bids for the Rs 14,000-crore project, a bench of CJI Bhushan Gavai and Justice A G Masih asked solicitor general Tushar Mehta and senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for MMRDA, to consult the state govt and take instructions on whether the public authority was willing to re-tender. It did not pass any order but asked MMRDA to re-think its next steps, adding that it would otherwise pass interim orders on Thursday, pending the bidding process. The CJI noted that the firm—”the very name of the bidder”—had been selected by the Centre to execute Central Vista’s construction.Once executed, the twin tunnel and elevated road, collectively stretching around 16km, would become the second longest such project after the 21km Atal Setu (which L&T, as the largest engineering company, helped build).In HC, MMRDA said L&T and two others among five bidders were held non-responsive, and that it was not obliged under the tender terms to inform bidders of the result during the bidding process and would do so once the winner was awarded the contract. L&T argued that guidelines of the state’s public works department (PWD) required bidders to be informed of the technical rounds as well. MMRDA said it was not mandatory.HC cited the public importance of the project, the delay that may ensue and SC orders in the bullet train project to not stay the opening of the price bids, but asked MMRDA to keep all bids sealed for two weeks to enable L&T to go in for an appeal. It said the firm suppressed certain bid clauses when it came to court and said the petitioner must come to court with full disclosure. Senior counsel Janak Dwarkadas for L&T argued in HC that MMRDA had flouted central vigilance commission’s (CVC) guidelines on transparency and accountability. HC found “much merit” in the submission of senior counsel A M Singhvi for L&T that the tender terms were contrary to PWD and CVC guidelines. It observed that the tender conditions were prima facie “opaque and could give rise to the tendering authority acting in an arbitrary and non-transparent manner”, but it noted that L&T accepted the terms and participated without challenging them.