Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on an intervention application challenging the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking an investigation into alleged fraudulent bank guarantees submitted by Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd (MEIL). The guarantees were provided for a Rs 16,600-crore contract related to the Thane-Borivali twin tunnels project.
The PIL, filed last month by investigative journalist Ravi Prakash Velicheti, alleges that MEIL submitted bank guarantees from St Lucia-based Euro Exim Bank, which is not recognized as a scheduled, commercial, or foreign bank by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). St Lucia, known as a tax haven, was cited in the PIL as the location of the financial institution in question. The petition contends that these guarantees facilitated MEIL in securing advance payments from the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), thereby endangering public funds and the execution of the project. Furthermore, it alleges that authorities were aware of the fraudulent nature of the guarantees but still disbursed approximately Rs 1,668.74 crore to MEIL in an “illegal and unlawful manner.”
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing MMRDA, and senior counsel Darius Khambata, appearing for MEIL, argued against the PIL, questioning its admissibility. They highlighted a post made by Velicheti on social media platform X after the matter was taken up in court. The post, according to them, undermined judicial integrity and cast aspersions on the bench and the involved parties.
In the post, Ravi Prakash Velicheti wrote: “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 (Ravi Prakash’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 argued that Velicheti had used the PIL for personal publicity, leveraging media coverage of the case. He further alleged that the journalist had attempted to conceal legal cases filed against him, including accusations related to selling off company trademarks and financial misappropriation. Citing procedural rules, Khambata stated that all litigations against a petitioner must be disclosed when filing a PIL. “PIL does not stand for ‘personal’ or ‘publicity’ interest litigation. One cannot misuse it for personal gain,” he asserted.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also representing MEIL, echoed these concerns, contending that the PIL sought to scandalize the court and should not be entertained.
ALSO READ: Meerpet Murder Case: Forensic Report Reveals Shocking Details
Maharashtra Government Supports Intervention
Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing the Maharashtra government, backed the intervention application, arguing that Velicheti’s social media remarks demonstrated a lack of faith in the judiciary and amounted to criminal contempt. He warned that allowing such PILs could encourage misuse of the legal process.
Petitioner’s Counsel Defends PIL’s Intent
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing Velicheti, acknowledged that his client’s social media post was inappropriate but urged the court not to dismiss the PIL on that basis. “If the court finds the petitioner unsuitable, it can remove him as a party and appoint an amicus curiae, but the issue itself should not be ignored,” Bhushan argued.
READ MORE: Alleged Corruption in Megha’s Palamuru Project: Supreme Court Considers Independent Probe
He criticized the opposition’s efforts to prevent a hearing on the case, stating: “It is remarkable how extensively attempts are being made to suppress this petition. Four senior advocates, along with the solicitor general, have joined forces to block a hearing on the merits of the case.” Bhushan also indicated that one of the defendants had filed a defamation suit against Velicheti, a common tactic, he claimed, used by large corporations to silence whistleblowers.
Refuting allegations that Velicheti had failed to disclose prior legal cases against him, Bhushan asserted that petitioners are not required to disclose unrelated litigation when filing a PIL.
Court Reserves Judgment
After hearing arguments from both sides, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre reserved its ruling on the intervention application, with a decision expected at a later date.