Bombay HC Reserves Judgment on Probe into MEIL’s Alleged Fraud in ₹16,600-Crore Tunnel Project
The Bombay High Court has reserved its verdict on a contentious Public Interest Litigation (PIL) demanding an investigation into Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd (MEIL) over accusations of submitting fraudulent bank guarantees to secure advance payments for Mumbai’s Thane-Borivali twin tunnels project. The PIL alleges systemic financial malpractice, jeopardizing public funds and project integrity.
MEIL’s Alleged Wrongdoing
The PIL, filed by investigative journalist Ravi Prakash Velicheti, claims MEIL submitted fake guarantees from the St. Lucia-based Euro Exim Bank—a non-RBI-recognized entity in a Caribbean tax haven—to the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) in July 2023. These guarantees allegedly enabled MEIL to unlawfully obtain ₹1,668.74 crore in advance payments, despite authorities reportedly knowing their illegitimacy. The PIL asserts such actions risked taxpayer money and undermined the ₹16,600-crore infrastructure project.
Courtroom Clash: MEIL’s Defense vs. PIL’s Allegations
During hearings, MEIL’s legal team, led by senior counsels Darius Khambata and Mukul Rohatgi, aggressively challenged the PIL’s validity. They accused Velicheti of “misusing PILs for personal gain”, citing his social media post criticizing the judiciary’s impartiality. Khambata argued Velicheti hid past litigations (including financial misconduct allegations) and violated PIL rules by not disclosing them.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (for MMRDA) and Maharashtra’s Advocate General Birendra Saraf backed MEIL, claiming Velicheti’s remarks amounted to “criminal contempt” and eroded trust in the judiciary. Saraf warned that entertaining such PILs could set a dangerous precedent for misuse.
Velicheti’s Defense: “Don’t Bury the Issue”
Velicheti’s lawyer, Prashant Bhushan, admitted his client’s social media post was “inappropriate” but urged the court to prioritise the substance of the fraud allegations. He accused MEIL and MMRDA of deploying legal heavyweights to “suppress scrutiny” and highlighted a defamation suit filed against Velicheti as intimidation. Bhushan argued procedural lapses (like non-disclosure of past cases) were irrelevant unless directly linked to the PIL’s merits.
Judicial Stand
A bench led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre reserved its order on whether the PIL merits hearing. The decision will determine if allegations against MEIL—a major player in India’s infrastructure sector—face judicial scrutiny or are dismissed on procedural grounds.
Broader Implications
The case underscores concerns about corporate accountability and transparency in public projects. Critics argue MEIL’s alleged use of offshore entities for guarantees reflects financial engineering to bypass regulatory safeguards, while the state’s defense of the contractor raises questions about conflicts of interest.
With public funds and institutional credibility at stake, the court’s ruling could set a precedent for handling high-stakes PILs exposing corporate malpractice. For now, the spotlight remains on MEIL’s disputed guarantees and whether systemic oversight failed to protect taxpayer interests. The judgment will reveal if accountability triumphs over power—or if “business as usual” prevails.