HC nixes PIL on twin tunnel contract, slams petitioner

Mumbai: Holding that the petitioner did not come to court with "clean hands" and that his social media post amounted to criminal contempt of court, Bombay HC on Tuesday dismissed a PIL that sought a probe into a Rs 1,700-crore bank guarantee furnished by Megha Engineering Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL), the winning bidder for the Borivli-Thane twin tunnel project. It said it wasn't delving into the merits of the PIL's claims.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bhartai Dangre held that the petitioner, Hyderabad resident V Ravi Prakash, "undoubtedly committed criminal contempt" through his post uploaded soon after the matter was listed for hearing last month. He was "guilty of making inappropriate tweets which scandalise the court", and of "suppression of facts" by not disclosing pending litigation against himself, held HC.
It, however, said it was not initiating contempt proceedings as Prakash's senior counsel, Prashant Bhushan, termed the tweet "inappropriate" and, on his advice, the petitioner deleted it after five days.
The PIL had also sought cancellation of the tunnel contract allegedly worth "Rs 16,000 crore" awarded to MEIL. The guarantee was issued by Euro Exim Bank, which is neither a scheduled bank nor a commercial bank approved by RBI, Bhushan argued.
The company, through senior counsel Darius Khambata, sought dismissal of the PIL, raising preliminary grounds of maintainability, the petitioner's locus (right to be heard), and his bona fides. Khambata said PIL petitioners are required to come to court with clean hands, but the petitioner flouted mandatory disclosure requirements under HC rules and questioned his conduct in posting on social media soon after the matter was listed by HC last month. Khambata said the petitioner's post made "egregious allegations against govt authorities as well as (high) court and has deliberately scandalised the court".
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta for MMRDA, former attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, also for MEIL, and state advocate general Birendra Saraf argued that the litigant's conduct cannot be countenanced.
HC delved into whether Prakash's conduct was bona fide, he suppressed facts, complied with mandatory requirements and disclosed prior matters, and committed criminal contempt of court. It held that his conduct was not bona fide in posting the tweet.
Saraf said the tweet was meant "to create a public opinion against the parties to the petition" and showed a "lack of faith in the court". Bhushan said the rules required only related cases to be disclosed, not strategic lawsuits against public participation, which Prakash faced.