Latest news with #Rohatgi
The Wire
18 hours ago
- Business
- The Wire
What do the SC's Stern Words to the MMRDA on Tendering Have to Do With Electoral Bonds?
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued a stern directive to the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), suggesting it re-tender two major infrastructure projects collectively worth approximately Rs 14,000 crore, or face a stay on the current process. The warning on May 26 came during a hearing on appeals by Larsen & Toubro (L&T) Ltd, which contested its technical disqualification from the bidding for the Mumbai Elevated Road Project and the Road Tunnel Project, where Hyderabad-based Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL) emerged as the lowest (L1) bidder. Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, presiding over a two-judge bench also comprising Justice A.G. Masih, expressed surprise at L&T's exclusion. 'The very name of the bidder, it's difficult to believe, he has been chosen to construct the Central Vista by the Central government,' CJI Gavai remarked, highlighting L&T's established credentials. He instructed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing MMRDA, to 'take instructions on whether you are willing to re-tender. Otherwise we will stay.' L&T has challenged two Bombay high court orders from May 20, which upheld MMRDA's decision not to communicate the reasons for technical disqualification before awarding the projects. L&T argued this was an arbitrary and non-transparent process, leading to MEIL being declared L1 at a substantially higher cost. L&T claimed its bid was approximately Rs 2,521 crore lower for the Road Tunnel Project (estimated at Rs 8,000 crore) and Rs 609 crore lower for the Elevated Road Project (estimated at Rs 6,000 crore) compared to MEIL. During the hearing, CJI Gavai emphasised the public interest involved. When Rohatgi argued that 'question of money doesn't arise if you are disqualified,' the CJI countered, 'question of money also arises if it's a public interest matter…you better take instructions. The public money would be saved.' He further stressed, 'We are in an era of transparency…if it's arbitrary, the person should have an opportunity to challenge.' MMRDA's counsel maintained there were 'good reasons' for L&T's disqualification and that tender clauses allowed for reasons to be shared post-award to prevent delays from 'unnecessary challenges.' Rohatgi added, 'We will show the reasons for disqualification.' Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi, appearing for L&T, highlighted the significant cost difference and hinted at the profiles of other bidders, stating, 'Names of the other two left are more important than my name…Their names are very interesting.' The controversy is amplified by the profile of MEIL. The Hyderabad-based firm, valued at Rs 67,500 crore, has been a prominent purchaser of electoral bonds. Data released by the Election Commission of India revealed MEIL bought bonds worth Rs 966 crore, with around 60% (approximately Rs 584 crore) going to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The Megha group's total donations via electoral bonds, including through associated companies like Western UP Power Transmission Company Limited, SEPC Power, and Evey Trans Private Limited, amount to Rs 1,232 crore, making it one of the largest political donors in the country. This extensive political funding, particularly to the party leading the Union government and in Maharashtra (where MMRDA operates), has cast a shadow on the tender process. MEIL, founded by Pamireddy Pitchi Reddy in 1989 and now run by his nephew P.V. Krishna Reddy, has executed major projects, including the $14 billion Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project in Telangana, which itself faced scrutiny from the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) for alleged irregularities. The company also secured the Zojila Tunnel project. The Mumbai Elevated Road Project involves a 9.80 km bridge along Vasai Creek, while the Road Tunnel Project is for a 5-km twin tunnel system on Thane Ghodbunder Road. Both are extensions of the Mumbai Coastal Road project. The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for May 29, where MMRDA is expected to respond to the court's suggestion for a re-tender.
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
Mumbai elevated road and tunnel projects: Re-tender or we will stay, Supreme Court tells MMRDA on L&T plea against rejection of bids
The Supreme Court on Monday said it's difficult to believe that the technical bids of Larsen and Toubro (L&T) Ltd — which was selected for the execution of the Central Vista Project — for the Rs 6,000 crore (approx) Mumbai Elevated Road Project and Rs 8,000 crore (approx) Road Tunnel Project were rejected and asked Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) whether it was willing to re-tender, failing which, the court warned, it would stay the process. 'The very name of the bidder, it's difficult to believe, he has been chosen to construct the Central Vista by the Central government,' Chief Justice of India B R Gavai presiding over a two-judge bench said. 'Take instructions on whether you are willing to retender. Otherwise we will stay,' the CJI told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi who appeared for MMRDA. The bench, also comprising Justice A G Masih, was hearing appeals filed by L&T, challenging the two May 20 Bombay High Court orders upholding MMRDA's stand that the reasons for the rejection of the technical bids need not be communicated to L&T before the projects are awarded. The principal ground of L&T's challenge is that it was technically disqualified from the process without any intimation or reasons. It contended that the arbitrary and non-transparent manner of carrying out the tender process has resulted in declaration of the L1 bid for both projects to Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd at a substantially higher project cost. The company claimed that compared to the L1 bidder, its price bid was approximately Rs 2,521 crore less in the Road Tunnel Project and Rs 609 crore less in the elevated road project. L&T had initially challenged the MMRDA's decision to proceed with the opening of the price bids without the presence of L&T, and without communication of any disqualification to it, before the Bombay HC. The same was dismissed via the two orders on May 20, 2025, following which it approached the SC. On Monday, Mehta submitted that the HC had said that all contentions are kept open and even after award of the contract, it can be stayed. The CJI, however, said that will only be an excuse to invoke fait accompli. When Senior Advocate A M Singhvi appearing for L&T said the L1 bidder's bids were about Rs 2,500 crore and Rs 600 crore more than L&T's, Rohatgi submitted that 'question of money doesn't arise if you are disqualified.' The bench, however, did not seem to agree. CJI Gavai said 'question of money also arises if it's a public interest matter', adding, 'you better take instructions. The public money would be saved'. The SG said 'there are good reasons' for the disqualification. Rohatgi added: 'We will show the reasons for disqualification.' He argued that the SC had in 2022 upheld similar clauses of the tender where reasons for disqualification may be intimated after the award of tender. Singhvi's said the 2022 order pertained to foreign-funded projects, and was inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Mehta submitted that said clauses aim to ensure that a tender process is not disrupted due to unnecessary challenges causing delays. Mehta said: 'Dr Singhvi made a request, don't return my price bid. We kept his price bid with us without opening it in a sealed cover. He opened it. We do not know that there is an increase in the price he has quoted.' Singhvi responded, 'I know my price.' CJI Gavai said, 'We are in an era of transparency…if it's arbitrary, the person should have an opportunity to challenge.' Rohatgi said he had no objection but L&T can wait till the financial bids are opened. The CJI said, 'and make it a fait accompli. It would be said the project had already commenced.' Singhvi added that the 'names of the other two left are more important than my name…Their names are very interesting.' The court will hear the matter next on May 29. The Elevated Road Project envisages a 9.80 km bridge passing along the Vasai Creek. It's part of an extension of the Mumbai Coastal Road project and a part of the MMRDA's larger road expansion project involving construction of approximately a 15-km stretch of road from Gaimukh in Thane to Bhayander. The Road Tunnel Project is for Design & Construction of underground road tunnel from Gaimukh to Fountain Hotel Junction on Thane Ghodbunder Road. It envisages 5-km-long twin tunnels of finished diameter of 14.6m estimated at approximately Rs 8,000 crore, which is an extension of the Mumbai Coastal Road project and a part of the MMRDA's larger road expansion project involving construction of approximately 15 km of road from Gaimukh in Thane to Bhayander. Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
Time of India
5 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Delhi HC reserves order on Celebi's security clearance withdrawal
NEW DELHI: Delhi high court reserved judgment Friday on a petition by Celebi Airport Services Private Ltd against a decision by the Centre's Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BACS) to withdraw the Turkiye company's security authorisation for ground handling operations at airports over national security concerns. A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Datta reserved the judgment after listening to senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Celebi, and solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the central govt. The court requested all parties to submit written statements by Monday. The cancellation of Celebi's security clearance came in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor and Pakistan's retaliation that included use of Turkish weapons. Rohatgi argued that principles of natural justice were breached, as Celebi received neither prior notice nor information about govt's intended actions. The decision violated Rule 12 of the Aircrafts Security Rules, 2023, rendering it invalid. The rule stipulates that govt must provide an entity an opportunity to present its case before suspending security clearance. Any suspension requires documented justification and cannot exceed one year. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cost Of Amusement Park Equipment From Mexico Might Surprise You - See Tips Amusement Park Equipment | search ads Click Here Undo Cancellation is permitted only on reasonable grounds of national security, civil aviation security, or over non-compliance with security conditions. Rohatgi contended that Centre was not endowed with plenary powers, as it claimed to, and it was not open for govt to say it could be in breach of its own rules of granting an opportunity of hearing while revoking security clearance. Celebi urged the HC not to examine materials provided to it in a sealed cover until the firm was given a gist of the allegations it faced. Emphasising the firm ought to have been put on notice before govt's action, Rohatgi said: "Notice has to say the proposed punishment based on the gravamen of the facts... In a given case you can redact some I should know, or should I argue from newspapers?... Give me a gist of allegations. "
India Today
5 days ago
- Business
- India Today
Celebi calls Centre's move 'violation of rules', Delhi High Court reserves order
The Delhi High Court on Friday reserved its order on a petition filed by Turkish firm Celebi Aviation Services India Pvt Ltd, challenging the government's decision to revoke its security clearance. The cancellation, initiated by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), has stirred legal and diplomatic ripples amid heightened tensions between India and on behalf of Celebi, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the BCAS action violated established legal procedure under Rule 12 of the Aircraft Security Rules. "This unilateral action is a complete violation of Rule 12 and renders the cancellation order both invalid and meaningless," Rohatgi submitted before the maintained that the government is required to present a factual basis for revoking a company's security clearance. "Even if you make rules related to security at the airport, you are bound by the rules. The government cannot say that if we have made the rule, we can violate it," said Rohatgi in court. He further urged the court to ensure that reasons behind the cancellation are clearly recorded in writing, to establish transparency and legal accountability."They will have to follow the law and the court should record the reasons in writing so that it becomes known under which rule the action has been taken," he Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, informed the court that he would file written submissions by an earlier hearing on Wednesday, Rohatgi emphasised that Celebi had operated in India for 17 years without any allegations or lapses. He described the revocation as arbitrary and contrary to principles of natural justice. advertisementHe also pointed out that the legal framework governing aviation security had evolved, noting that earlier judgments were based on outdated regulations under the Aircraft Rules of 1937, whereas the current case falls under Rule 12 of the 2011 guidelines."Justice Kurian Joseph's judgment dealt with the Aircraft Rules of 1937, which are no longer applicable. There were new rules in 2011, and the current position is governed by Rule 12," he controversy began on May 15, when India revoked Celebi's security clearance citing national security concerns. The move followed a Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) press briefing on May 9, which pointed to the use of Turkish-origin drones in a cross-border attack by to official statements and preliminary forensic analysis, debris from drones used in the May 8–9 overnight assault on Indian military and civilian targets confirmed they were Turkish-made "Asisguard Songar" models, designed for surveillance and precision further claimed that Turkey not only supplied armed drones to Pakistan but also provided operational assistance, with Turkish operators reportedly guiding the Watch
India Gazette
5 days ago
- Business
- India Gazette
Delhi HC reserves judgment on Celebi Airport services' security clearance case
New Delhi [India], May 23 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Friday reserved its judgment on the plea filed by Turkish company Celebi Airport Services India Pvt Ltd, challenging the aviation regulator Bureau of Civil Aviation Safety's (BCAS) decision to revoke its security clearance, citing 'national security' concerns. Justice Sachin Datta reserved the order after hearing extensive arguments from both sides. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that he would submit written arguments by the following day. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Celebi, contended that Rule 12 of the Aircraft Rules, 2013, is legally binding unless specifically overturned by Parliament. He argued that security-related regulations must be strictly followed, leaving no room for arbitrary government decisions. Rohatgi emphasised that officials must adhere to due process, including holding a proper hearing, providing written reasons, and ensuring reasonable grounds for action--none of which were followed in this case. He further asserted that the power to issue directions is distinct from the power to cancel or revoke security clearance, making the government's decision unlawful. Highlighting the consequences, he stated that the revocation of security clearance has led to the cancellation of Celebi's contracts with airport operators nationwide. He noted that operators are simply complying with directives from Delhi, leaving Celebi with no recourse. He stressed that the clearance was the foundation of their agreements with DIAL, MIAL, Adani, and others, and without it, their business is unravelling. On Thursday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, argued that the government's plenary superintendence powers extend to national and airport security. He described the case as a 'sui generis' matter, requiring careful judicial scrutiny due to potential security threats across multiple airports. Mehta underscored the importance of aviation security laws in preventing incidents like explosions at airports or onboard aircraft. He explained Celebi's role in airport ground handling, which grants access to sensitive flight and VIP data, making security clearance crucial. Defending the revocation, Mehta stated that intelligence inputs raised concerns over Celebi's operations, particularly in passenger and cargo handling. He argued that certain security-related decisions cannot always be fully disclosed, as revealing classified information could compromise national interests. On Wednesday, Rohatgi emphasised that Celebi has operated in India for 17 years, employing over 10,000 personnel across various airports. He argued that the abrupt revocation of the company's security clearance--initially granted in 2022 for a five-year term--was done without prior notice or a hearing, violating procedural fairness. Rohatgi suggested that the Turkish shareholding in Celebi may have influenced the government's decision, but maintained that Celebi's workforce consists solely of Indian nationals and has no political affiliations with Turkey. Union Civil Aviation Minister Ram Mohan Naidu recently assured measures to protect affected employees and maintain stability in airport operations. The ministry reaffirmed that the revocation was necessary to safeguard national security while ensuring uninterrupted airport functioning. (ANI)
