Twin tunnels project: HC reserves order on PIL seeking probe into ‘fake bank guarantees’

The PIL said that Megha Engineering & Infrastructures used the allegedly fraudulent bank guarantees to obtain advance payments from the authorities, thereby jeopardising the project and public funds

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on an intervention application challenging the locus standi (right to be heard) of 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.

Twin tunnels project: HC reserves order on PIL seeking probe into ‘fake bank guarantees’

Ravi Prakash Velicheti, an investigative journalist, had filed the PIL last month. It claimed that the bank guarantees submitted by the Hyderabad-based infrastructure company to the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) in July 2023 for the twin tunnel project were issued by St Lucia-based Euro Exim Bank, which is neither a scheduled bank, a commercial bank nor a foreign bank recognised by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). St Lucia is a tax haven in the Caribbean.

The PIL added that MEIL used the allegedly fraudulent bank guarantees to obtain advance payments from the authorities, thereby jeopardising the project and public funds. It further claimed that the authorities knew the bank guarantees were fraudulent but still advanced sums of around ₹1,668.74 crore to MEIL “in an illegal and unlawful manner”.

Responding to the PIL on Wednesday, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the MMRDA, and senior counsel Darius Khambata, representing MEIL, questioned why the petition deserved to be heard. They brought up Velicheti’s post on his X account after the matter was taken up by the court, which they said “shakes the consciousness of the case” and cast aspersions on the integrity of the bench and the parties involved.

Velicheti’s post on X read: “The ball is in the Mumbai high court, but let’s not kid ourselves, this isn’t a fair match. We’re up against a system that bends, kneels, and prostrates for the rich while trampling anyone who dares to speak up. Thank you, Prashant Bhushan (Velicheti’s lawyer), you’ve never bowed to power. But will the judiciary hold its ground, or will it crumble under the same old weight of political influence, celebrity cadre, and unholy money trails?”

Khambata said that Velicheti had misused the PIL for his personal benefit, considering the media coverage of the case. He also argued that the journalist had tried to suppress the cases filed against him, which included selling off his company’s trademarks and siphoning off money. Khambata said that according to the rules, parties have to disclose all the litigation against them before filing a PIL. “PIL does not stand for ‘personal’ or ‘publicity’ interest litigation. One cannot invoke their personal interests through it,” he added.

Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, representing MEIL, supported these contentions and stated that Velicheti’s PIL doesn’t deserve a hearing as it scandalises the court’s authority.

The Maharashtra government, through advocate general Birendra Saraf, also supported the intervention application, submitting that Velicheti has not only shown scant faith in the judiciary but also spoke about the parties in litigation, which amounts to criminal contempt. He further contended that allowing such PILs would encourage their misuse.

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing Velicheti, acknowledged the inappropriate nature of his client’s X post but urged the court not to dismiss the petition solely based on it. “If the court finds the petitioner inappropriate, remove him as a party and appoint an amicus, but don’t brush this issue under the carpet,” he said.

Bhushan also expressed concerns over the defendants’ arguments, stating, “It’s astounding how far one can go to prevent the court from hearing the matter. Four senior advocates, along with the solicitor general, have come together to prevent the court from hearing the petition on merits. When someone exposes the wrongdoings, it becomes easy for the conglomerates to slap defamation suits to deter them to raise their voices.” This indicates that one of the defendants has filed a defamation suit against Velicheti.

Bhushan also refuted the defendants’ argument about Velicheti breaking the rules by not disclosing the cases filed against him. He said that a petitioner is not required to disclose past cases if they are not connected with the current petition.

After hearing both sides’ arguments, the division bench of chief justice Alok Aradhe and justice Bharati Dangre reserved its judgment on the intervention application for a later date.