Public Interest Litigations must be filed with bona fides, and failure to disclose relevant facts can lead to dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK ARADHE, C.J.

1. In this Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the petitioner, inter alia; is seeking an investigation by CBI or an SIT into the alleged fraud bank guarantees furnished by respondent No.3 – Megha Engineering Infrastructure Ltd. (MEIL) which has been accepted by respondent No.1 i.e. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA). The challenge to the bank guarantees is made on the ground that the same have been issued by the Euro Exim Bank, which is neither a scheduled bank nor a commercial bank, approved by the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the MMRDA to cancel the contract awarded to MEIL. The facts leading to filing of this PIL need mention, which are stated infra.

(I) FACTS:

2. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued on 12^th May 2023 for construction of a twin tube road tunnel between Thane and Borivali in Mumbai. The MEIL, in the aforesaid RFP, was declared the preferred bidder and on 8^th May 2023, a Letter of Acceptance (LoA) was issued to it. The MEIL furnished performance bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.92.67 crores and Rs.88.18 crores, issued by Canara Bank for the project in question. The MEIL has also furnished the performance bank guarantees issued by Euro Exim Bank.

3. The petitioner claims himself to be an investigative journalist. He learnt that the aforesaid bank guarantees are fraudulent, as the Euro Exim Bank is neither a scheduled bank nor a commercial bank, approved by the Reserve Bank of India. On 20^th February 2025, the PIL petition was listed for orders on admission, however, a preliminary objection was filed with regard to the maintainability of the petition and the learned Counsel for the petitioner was granted time to file reply to the same, which was filed.

4. A three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand Vs. Shivshankar Sharma, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541, in paragraph 19 held as under:

“PARA 19…. What is of crucial significance in a Public Interest Litigation is the bona fide of the petitioner who files the PIL. It is an extremely relevant consideration and must be examined by the Court at the very threshold itself and this has to be done irrespective of the seemingly high public cause being espoused by the petitioner in a PIL.”

5. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, we have heard learned Counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents with regard to bona fides, locus and maintainability of this PIL and propose to deal with the same before adverting to merits of the matter.

(II) SUBMISSIONS ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BY RESPONDENTS:

6. Learned Senior Counsel for MEIL submits that subsequent to mentioning of the petition, the petitioner has posted tweets on 12^th February 2025 by making egregious allegations against the Government authorities as well as this Court and has deliberately scandalised the Court. It is urged that the petitioner has committed criminal contempt. It is submitted that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed material facts regarding prior shareholder disputes, civil and criminal disputes with MEIL, which clearly shows that this petition is motivated and not bona fide. In this connection, our attention has been invited to the averments made in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the interim application seeking dismissal of the PIL. It is contended that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the Government tender and public works contract which has been issued and framed in public interest.

7. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is in willful breach of Rule 5 and 7 of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 (Rules 2010) and has filed this frivolous and mala fide litigation. It is also urged that the petitioner has made the following breaches/violations of the Rules 2010 :-

“(a) Non-disclosure of the details of the litigation between the Petitioner and this Respondent which have a legal nexus with the Petition.

(b) Failure to annex an affidavit statin