No stay on financial bid opening for Thane-Bhayandar tunnel, elevated road projects: Bombay HC vacation bench

Time of India

20-05-2025

MUMBAI: The
vacation bench on Tuesday granted no relief to construction major
, one of the bidders in the Thane-Bhayandar Tunnel and elevated road project.
The division bench of Justices Kamal Khata and Arif Doctor did not stay the opening of the
that had been scheduled for May 13, originally.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
But HC said after opening financial bids and communicating the decision to the winning bidder the financial bids are to be preserved in a sealed cover for two weeks, to enable L&T to go in appeal to the Supreme Court.
The tunnel, 5 km and elevated road, 9.8 km together make it the second longest road project after the almost 22 km long
and is being undertaken by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA).
The project cost is estimated together at over Rs 14000 crore.
Earlier as an urgent interim order, the HC had initially stayed the opening of the financial bids—the final stage of the bidding process—for a day and then during the hearing had asked Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) which is executing the two projects, to not open the bids till it passes orders.
The reasoned judgment copy will be made available later, during the day.
But when L&T's senior counsel Janak Dwarkadas in one of the two petitions—separate petitions were filed for the two bids for the tunnel and elevated road—sought to request presence of company's representatives at the opening of the financial bids, the HC was not inclined and orally said it had in his petition, held that the bidder had come to court after suppressing material.
Last Thursday, the HC had closed for orders a petition filed by construction major Larsen &Toubro (L&T) to challenge the opening of financial bids sans its presence as a bidder for two projects, one a tunnel and the other an elevated road from Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayander.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Earlier L&T had played a lead role in construction of the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link (Atal Setu), also an MMRDA project.
The High Court, vacation bench of Justices Kamal Khata and Arif Doctor sought written submissions from both sides. On Wednesday, it had requested MMRDA to not open the bids till Thursday when it concluded the hearing and extended the stay against opening of the financial bid—which is the last stage of the tendering process.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi logging in via Video conferencing from Delhi, appearing for MMRDA, --as did Solicitor General Tushar Mehta—said not just L&T, there were two other bidders in one of the projects and one more, in the second project, who were found non-responsive when technical bids were opened and under the terms of the tendering process, will be intimated once the bidder is finalised after opening of financial bids.
There were around five bidders, over all, the court was informed. Rohatgi had argued that the petitioner had suppressed bid conditions and clauses which clearly enable MMRDA to not disclose its decision on the technical bid round to the bidders during the process but entail intimation after the winning bid is selected.
For L&T, which had filed two separate petitions for the tunnel and
, senior counsel AM Singhvi and S U Kamdar appeared on Thursday arguing how the non-intimation after opening of technical bids—the second stage of bidding process—flouted even State guidelines and various fundamental rights including equality, right to trade and right to life, in tenders for
, entailing public funds.
Rohatgi and Mehta, cited the Mumbai-Ahmedabad highspeed rail (bullet train) project Judgment of the Supreme Court, termed the 'Montecarlo' case, after the bidder whose technical bid was held non-responsive went to court and was unsuccessful before the apex court.
In large public projects, the bid documents are made to ensure there is no litigation during the tendering process, as delay would not auger well, Mehta argued.
L&T counsel had argued that the bullet train is foreign funded and the SC had carved a distinction, but MMRDA cannot be allowed to turn the settled principles of transparency and fairness long held by the courts as foundation of tendering process for public project, on its head.
MMRDA said the tender terms were same in the bullet train project hence L&T petition out to be dismissed. The SC in Montecarlo matter had held, 'Even while entertaining the writ petition and/or granting the stay which ultimately may delay the execution of the Mega projects, it must be remembered that it may seriously impede the execution of the projects of public importance and disables the State …or its instrumentalities from discharging the constitutional and legal obligation towards the citizens.
Therefore, the High Courts should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercise of its discretion while entertaining such petitions…''