HC junks PIL seeking probe into ‘fake bank guarantees’ for Thane-Borivali twin tunnels project

A division bench of chief justice Alok Aradhe and justice Bharati Dangre ruled that the petitioner, investigative journalist Ravi Prakash Velicheti, had not approached the court with clean intentions

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an investigation into the allegedly fake bank guarantees furnished by Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd (MEIL) for a ₹16,600-crore contract for the Thane-Borivali twin tunnels project.

Mumbai, India - Aug. 28, 2015 : Bombay High Court : ( Photo by Bhushan Koyande )

A division bench of chief justice Alok Aradhe and justice Bharati Dangre ruled that the petitioner, investigative journalist Ravi Prakash Velicheti, had not approached the court with clean intentions. It found the petitioner guilty of suppressing facts, stating that he had not disclosed the details of previous litigation pending between the parties.

The bench also agreed with the defendants’ claim that a tweet posted by Velicheti last month after the matter was taken up by the court amounted to criminal contempt, but decided not to take legal action against him since the post was taken down within five days.

In his petition, Velicheti had alleged that MEIL had submitted bank guarantees to the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority in July 2023 that were issued by Euro Exim Bank, an unaccredited foreign bank based in a tax haven, St Lucia. Accepting such bank guarantees was in complete violation of the project contract, the General Finance Rules, 2017, issued by India’s finance ministry, and the Reserve Bank of India, the petition claimed.

In response, MEIL clarified that the bank guarantees furnished by the Euro Exim Bank had been authenticated by the Bank of Maharashtra and the Bank of India. It also questioned the petition’s intent, calling it “motivated”. The Hyderabad-based firm said that Velicheti had deliberately suppressed material facts regarding prior shareholder disputes and civil and criminal disputes with the company.

MEIL also submitted that after the court took up the petition, Velicheti had posted tweets on February 12, 2025, making egregious allegations against government authorities and the court. He had deliberately scandalised the court and committed criminal contempt, the firm argued.

Advocate general Birendra Saraf, representing the Maharashtra government, also submitted that the tweets were used as an instrument to scandalise the court. “It is tantamount to interference with the administration of justice, and therefore, criminal contempt should be initiated against the petitioner,” he said.

Senior counsel Prashant Bhushan, representing Velicheti, admitted that the tweets were inappropriate, but urged the court to appoint an amicus if it concluded that the petitioner was an inappropriate person to take forward the proceedings of the PIL. “This court must appoint an amicus as it raises a genuine issue,” he said. Bhushan further argued that Velicheti’s previous legal disputes with MEIL were not connected with the current petition and, therefore, he was not obligated to disclose them.

However, the bench agreed with the defendants and dismissed the petition, clarifying that a litigant is obligated to disclose all the facts of the case and leave the decision-making to the court. “It is evident that the petitioner has not disclosed the details of the litigation pending between the parties and has not approached the court with clean hands. The petitioner, therefore, is guilty of suppression of facts,” the bench said.

The bench also agreed that Velicheti’s tweets amounted to criminal contempt, but acknowledged that the court should not be hyper-sensitive even when its criticism oversteps the limit. “In our opinion, the tweet scandalises the court. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has committed criminal contempt,” it said.

However, since tweets were taken down within five days, the court decided not to take any legal action against Velicheti. “In the peculiar facts of the case, we do not propose to initiate any contempt proceedings against the petitioner,” the bench added.