Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a journalist against the contract awarded for a Twin Tube Road Tunnel between Borivali and Thane, noting he had not come with "clean hands" and made "scandalous" comments against the court.

The PIL by journalist V Ravi Prakash, alleged that fraudulent bank guarantees (BGs) were issued by a foreign entity in favor of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) on behalf of Megha Engineering Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL), which was awarded the contract worth Rs 16,600.40 crore.

The plea, filed through advocate Arjun Kadam, sought cancellation of the award to MEIL, and also sought a probe by CBI or an SIT. The MEIL and the Maharashtra government challenged the maintainability of the plea and also claimed that the petitioner, after filing the PIL, posted certain scandalous comments on his social media against the court.

A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre said a person who approaches court with a PIL must do so not only with "clean hands" but also with a "clean heart, mind and objective".

It took note of the fact that the petitioner did not disclose details of the pending litigation between him and the company and hence has not approached the court with clean hands and was guilty of "suppression of facts".

Citing the posts on social media by the petitioner, the court said the conduct of the petitioner was tantamount to scandalising the court. “The petitioner is guilty of making inappropriate tweets which scandalise the court. The petitioner is also guilty of suppression of facts. The instant PIL has not been filed bona fide. Therefore, we are not inclined to examine the same on merits,” the bench underlined.

It added that the petitioner, with his posts against the institution of administration of justice, has scandalised the court and undoubtedly committed criminal contempt. However, following his counsel Prashant Bhushan’s advice, the petitioner took down the posts. “Therefore, we do not propose to initiate any contempt proceedings against him,” the court said while dismissing the petition.

MEIL, represented by senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Darius Khambata, argued that Ravi Prakash lacked the locus standi (legal standing) to file the PIL and had suppressed key facts. The Union government and the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) also supported MEIL’s contention that the petition was not maintainable.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, supported MEIL’s position, stating that the case was a “complete and brazen abuse of the process of law.” He emphasized that PILs must be filed in good faith and not for personal disputes, warning that misuse could undermine genuine PILs.