Bombay HC Rejects PIL Against ₹16k Crore Bank Guarantees In Borivali-Thane Tunnel Project

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation that requested an investigation into the bank guarantees provided by Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL) for the ₹16 crore Borivali-Thane Twin Tube Tunnel project.

A bench consisting of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre rejected the petition.

“The PIL is dismissed based on our analysis. However, there will be no penalty or costs imposed,” the Court stated while delivering the verdict.

PIL Filed Over Bank Guarantee Dispute

In October 2024, senior journalist Ravi Prakash filed a public interest litigation (PIL) questioning the validity of a bank guarantee issued by MEIL for the Twin Tube Tunnel project between Borivali and Thane. He claimed that fraudulent bank guarantees had been issued in favor of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and requested an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation or a Special Investigation Team (SIT).

MEIL Denies Allegations, Calls PIL Baseless

MEIL denied these allegations, calling them misleading and without merit. The company’s lawyers, Senior Advocates Darius Khambata and Mukul Rohatgi, argued that Prakash had no legal standing to file the petition and had failed to present a strong case. They claimed the allegations were based on personal grievances rather than genuine public interest.

Government Supports MEIL, Calls Petition Misuse of Law

The Union government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, also sided with MEIL, stating that the petition misused legal procedures and could create a harmful precedent if accepted.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, argued that the PIL raised valid concerns about the fairness of the tendering process for the tunnel project.

He claimed that MEIL had received unfair advantages, particularly regarding the bank guarantees, and pointed out the company’s financial ties, including its purchase of electoral bonds from various political parties.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International