Former chief executive officer of popular television channel TV9 V Ravi Prakash on Tuesday suffered a major setback in his legal battle against Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd (MEIL) in connection with the Borivali-Thane underground twin tunnel project.
The Bombay high court dismissed Ravi Prakash’s Public Interest Litigation petition seeking a probe by a Special Investigation Team or the CBI into alleged fraud bank guarantees accepted by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) from MEIL, which was awarded a Rs 16,600-crore contract for the project.
A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati H Dangre said the petitioner had no locus standi in the case and has no merits.
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan who argued on behalf of Ravi Prakash said the fraudulent bank guarantees were issued in favour of the MEIL by a foreign entity called Euro Exim Bank based in St Lucia and incorporated under the laws of England & Wales, and it was not a foreign bank recognised by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
He said the September 2017 notification of the Maharashtra Public Works Department stated that performance security can be accepted in the form of bank guarantees issued by nationalised and scheduled banks only.
Moreover, Prashant Bhushan submitted that another 2018 circular of the Finance Account Division, MMRDA also provided that guarantees from nationalised banks should be accepted for public procurement.
The petitioner also alleged quid pro quo arrangements, related to electoral bonds, between the project proponent MEIL and political parties.
Senior advocates Darius Khambata and Mukul Rohatgi – representing MEIL – opposed the PIL, arguing that the petitioner lacked locus standi (legal standing) and sought that it be dismissed and exemplary costs imposed on the petitioner.
MEIL, in its interim application, claimed that the petitioner had suppressed material facts regarding him being a prior shareholder, and civil and criminal disputes with MEIL which showed that the PIL is motivated and not genuine.
The firm claimed that after the plea was mentioned before the high court on February 12, the petitioner made scandalous remarks on social media “making egregious allegations against the government authorities and also the High Court and same amounted to criminal contempt of court and would disentitle him from seeking relief in present matters.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for MMRDA, asserted that Ravi Prakash had no legal standing to file the petition.
He pointed out that the bank guarantees in question had been duly verified by the State Bank of India and the State Bank of Maharashtra. However, the petitioner had deliberately concealed these facts.
The high court held that the petitioner’s conduct of posting said remarks on social media was “not bonafide” and “tantamount to scandalising the court”.
It also observed it was evident that the petitioner did not disclose details of criminal, civil or revenue litigation pending between the parties that involved him; therefore, he “has not approached the court with clean hands”.
He is guilty of suppression of facts, the court held and added that he did not comply with the mandate of Bombay High Court PIL Rules, 2010. Therefore, the court was “not inclined to examine the claim of petitioner on merits” and he was “not entitled to any relief in the PIL.”