Bombay Excessive Courtroom rejects L&T’s plea towards MMRDA in ₹6,000 crore Thane-Bhayandar tunnel venture; orders sealed cowl for worth bids | File Picture
Mumbai: Observing that it’s a “mega-infrastructure venture of great public significance”, the Bombay Excessive Courtroom on Tuesday dismissed the petitions filed by infrastructure main Larsen & Toubro (L&T) difficult the Mumbai Metropolitan Area Improvement Authority (MMRDA)’s resolution to not inform the corporate of the standing of its bid within the Rs 6,000 crore Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayandar tunnel and elevated street venture.
A trip bench of Justices Kamal Khata and Arif Physician refused to remain the opening of economic bids. Nevertheless, the courtroom directed that the worth bids for the elevated street tender be preserved in a sealed cowl for per week after the award of the contract, in accordance with tender norms. In distinction, the courtroom declined to increase related safety to cost bids for the Thane tunnel venture.
“Conversely, no prejudice in anyway can be prompted to the Petitioner if all rights and contentions of the Petitioner are saved open to problem the rejection of the Petitioner’s technical bid in addition to the award of the contract,” the judges noticed. “The rights of the Petitioner would stay intact, versus the grave prejudice that will be prompted within the case of any delay to the venture.”
The courtroom took notice of a press release by Solicitor Basic Tushar Mehta, showing for MMRDA, that “no matter occurs hereafter shall be topic to the Supreme Courtroom’s order.” He, together with senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, confused that “time is of the essence” and clarified that the bids “wouldn’t be destroyed.”
L&T had submitted its technical and monetary bids on December 30, 2024. The technical bids have been opened on January 1, 2025, however the firm claimed it obtained no communication thereafter, prompting it to maneuver courtroom.
The corporate alleged that MMRDA’s silence violated ideas of equity and transparency. Nevertheless, the courtroom held that L&T had failed to say or handle key clauses within the tender that barred disclosure of bid evaluations till the award of contract.
“It was incumbent upon the Petitioner to have set out the stated clauses and defined why the identical weren’t relevant,” the courtroom stated. “The Petitioner has admittedly not accomplished so, and thus we discover a lot advantage within the submission of Mr. Mukul Rohatgi (representing MMRDA) that the Petitioner is responsible of suppression of a cloth reality.”
“It’s not open to a celebration who seeks fairness to play ‘cover and search’ or to ‘decide and select’ sure information and to suppress and/or conceal different information,” the bench added.
Relating to the tunnel bid, the courtroom acknowledged senior counsel Janak Dwarkadas’s argument that the tendering course of could not adjust to Central Vigilance Fee (CVC) pointers, which require disclosure of disqualification causes after contract award. Nonetheless, the bench dominated that L&T couldn’t now problem situations it had already accepted.
The judges additionally rejected L&T’s claims of delay by MMRDA. “Given the magnitude of the venture, such analysis would take time. Even assuming there was a delay, that itself doesn’t imply the venture might be additional delayed,” they stated.
Following the decision, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi requested that monetary bids submitted electronically be preserved till the award is communicated. Granting the unopposed request, the courtroom directed that bids for the elevated street be preserved for 2 weeks from the date of communication.
