Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday reserved its order on a plea by Megha Engineering Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL), challenging the maintainability of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by senior journalist V. Ravi Prakash. The PIL seeks a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the Rs 16,600.40 crore Twin Tube Road Tunnel project between Borivali and Thane.

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.

MEIL pointed out that Ravi Prakash had filed the PIL in October 2024, alleging that fraudulent bank guarantees were issued by a foreign entity in favor of MMRDA on behalf of MEIL. However, the company claimed that the petition was motivated by personal grievances and highlighted Ravi Prakash’s past legal disputes.

The company also pointed to alleged defamatory content published by Ravi’s news platform and social media posts from February 12 and 13, 2025, in which he reportedly criticised the judiciary. “Can a PIL petitioner approach this court and say he doesn’t expect justice?” argued Khambata.

The company further argued that these posts amounted to contempt of court and demonstrated a personal vendetta against the company. “This is not just misfeeding information, it’s very serious. He is taking a chance for his personal vendetta,” Khambata added.

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. “This needs to be checked. Otherwise genuine PIL also suffers because of such a petition masqueraded as a PIL,” Mehta added.

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Ravi, argued that the PIL raised legitimate concerns about the tender process and questioned whether undue favors were granted to MEIL. He also highlighted MEIL’s alleged links to electoral bond purchases across political parties.

“This company had purchased electoral bonds of all the political parties. Today there is one government, tomorrow there can be another. Question is whether out of turn favour was given to this company? Ultimately it is a render process,” Bhushan submitted.

After a detailed hearing, a bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre reserved its order on MEIL’s plea.