HC reserves for orders infra firm’s plea over PIL

Mumbai: Bombay high court on Wednesday reserved for orders a plea by Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd on maintainability of a PIL filed last year. The PIL sought a probe into a Rs 1,700 crore bank guarantee issued as a winning bidder in the "Rs 16,000 crore" Borivali-Thane twin tunnel project.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre stated they would pass orders after a day-long hearing where five senior counsel made detailed submissions. Four of them called for contempt action against the petitioner, Hyderabad resident V Ravi Prakash, and urged the bench to set out detailed standards for filing PILs "to weed out frivolous litigation".
Former additional solicitor general Darius Khambata, representing MEIL, sought dismissal of the PIL, as did solicitor general Tushar Mehta, ex-attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, and state advocate general Birendra Saraf. They all argued that the litigant, by his tweet posted last month after HC agreed to hear the matter, later deleted, attempted to "scandalise" the judiciary and cannot be countenanced.
Khambata questioned the PIL's very maintainability. He cited SC rulings to argue that while dealing with PILs, HC must first be satisfied with the public interest element, verify bona fides of the petitioner, and "must discourage busybodies from filing frivolous PILs by imposing exemplary costs". Khambata said HC rules on PILs were flouted by suppressing another petition between same parties.
Mumbai: Bombay high court on Wednesday reserved for orders a plea by Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd on maintainability of a PIL filed last year. The PIL sought a probe into a Rs 1,700 crore bank guarantee issued as a winning bidder in the "Rs 16,000 crore" Borivali-Thane twin tunnel project.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre stated they would pass orders after a day-long hearing where five senior counsel made detailed submissions. Four of them called for contempt action against the petitioner, Hyderabad resident V Ravi Prakash, and urged the bench to set out detailed standards for filing PILs "to weed out frivolous litigation".
Former additional solicitor general Darius Khambata, representing MEIL, sought dismissal of the PIL, as did solicitor general Tushar Mehta, ex-attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, and state advocate general Birendra Saraf. They all argued that the litigant, by his tweet posted last month after HC agreed to hear the matter, later deleted, attempted to "scandalise" the judiciary and cannot be countenanced.
Khambata questioned the PIL's very maintainability. He cited SC rulings to argue that while dealing with PILs, HC must first be satisfied with the public interest element, verify bona fides of the petitioner, and "must discourage busybodies from filing frivolous PILs by imposing exemplary costs". Khambata said HC rules on PILs were flouted by suppressing another petition between same parties.