Safiya Malik

The Bombay High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and Megha Engineering Infrastructure Ltd. (MEIL). The petitioner, described as the President of RTV, sought the cancellation of a contract awarded to MEIL by the MMRDA, citing the alleged use of fraudulent bank guarantees. The Court found the petitioner guilty of suppression of material facts and of scandalizing the Court through social media posts. The Court declared, “the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands” and dismissed the PIL.

The petitioner had requested an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into performance guarantees issued by Euro Exim Bank, which the petitioner alleged was not an RBI-approved institution. The Court, however, found that the petitioner had engaged in conduct that amounted to criminal contempt but opted against initiating proceedings, citing the petitioner's later retraction and removal of the offending material.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala High Court Judgment, Restores Seniority List, States “Assistant Engineers May Opt Between Degree and Diploma Quotas”

The Bench issued no costs order and concluded that the PIL lacked bona fides and failed to meet the requisite disclosure requirements under the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010.

The matter arose following the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) on 12 May 2023, concerning the construction of a twin-tube road tunnel between Thane and Borivali. MEIL emerged as the preferred bidder, receiving a Letter of Acceptance on 8 May 2023. MEIL furnished performance guarantees totaling over Rs. 180 crore, secured through Canara Bank and Euro Exim Bank.

The petitioner, an investigative journalist, claimed that guarantees issued by Euro Exim Bank were fraudulent due to the institution's lack of RBI approval as a scheduled or commercial bank. Subsequently, on 20 February 2025, during the hearing on the PIL's maintainability, respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the petitioner's bona fides and locus standi.

Representing MEIL, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted that the petitioner had deliberately scandalized the Court through tweets dated 12 February 2025 and suppressed crucial details of ongoing litigation involving the petitioner and MEIL. The respondents highlighted the petitioner's alleged violations of Rule 5 and Rule 7 of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010, including the failure to disclose ongoing civil and criminal disputes and the absence of mandatory affidavits and undertakings.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the MMRDA, submitted that “scandalizing the Court is a serious misdemeanour and must result in serious consequences.” Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf, appearing for the State, also urged the Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the petitioner, citing a pattern of conduct intended to undermine the authority of the Court.

The Bench recorded that the petitioner had posted offensive tweets on the very day the petition was mentioned before the Court. The Court noted, “the conduct of the petitioner in publishing the tweets after mentioning the matter before this Court is not bona fide.” Further, it was recorded, “the petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts,” given the non-disclosure of multiple pending litigations, including defamation suits and criminal complaints involving both the petitioner and MEIL.

The judgment examined the nature of the PIL, referencing Supreme Court precedents, including State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, which categorized PILs into phases including governance-related PILs. The Court stated that, “this PIL falls within Phase-III, concerning probity, transparency and integrity in governance.”

In considering the petitioner's failure to comply with procedural rules, the Bench noted that Rule 5 of the 2010 Rules mandates disclosure of all litigation with a legal nexus to the petition. The Court recorded, “in the instant PIL, the petitioner has not furnished the details of the civil, criminal or revenue litigation involving the petitioner and has also failed to disclose the litigation pending between the parties in relation to the subject matter of the instant litigation.”

Also Read: Gujarat HC Rejects Son’s Plea Denying Liability for Father’s Bank Loan; Says ‘Debt Not Heritable Under Muslim Law’ Argument Needs Trial, No Grounds Under Order VII Rule 1

In addressing whether to proceed against the petitioner for criminal contempt, the Bench applied the doctrine of judicial restraint, referring to In Re: S. Mulgaokar and Prashant Bhushan And Another, IN RE. The Court observed, “the Court should not be hyper-sensitive even when its criticism oversteps the limit.” The Bench noted that the petitioner's tweets were removed following legal advice and thus chose not to initiate contempt proceedings despite acknowledging that “the tweet scandalises the Court.”

The Bombay High Court dismissed the PIL, observing that “the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this PIL” and that “the instant PIL has not been filed bona fide.” However, the Court refrained from imposing costs or commencing contempt proceedings.

The interim application filed in connection with the PIL also stood disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties 

For the Petitioner: Prashant Bhushan, Senior Advocate; Neha Rathi, Advocate; Kajal Giri, Advocate; Arjun Kadam, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1: Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General.

For Respondent No.2 – State of Maharashtra: Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General; Pooja Patil, AGP.

For Respondent No.3 and applicant in Interim Application No. 5415 of 2025: Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate; Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate; Vivek Reddy, Senior Advocate.

For Respondent No.4: Mayur Khandeparkar, Advocate; Pravin H. Padave, Advocate; Bijish Balan, Advocate.

For Respondent No.8: Ram Apte, Senior Advocate; Sagar Patil, Advocate; Suruchi Rokade, Advocate.

Case Title: V. Ravi Prakash, President, RTV v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:4320-DB

Case Number: Public Interest Litigation (L) No. 32968 of 2024 with Interim Application (L) No. 5415 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice Bharati Dangre

[Read/Download order]