Bombay HC Dismisses L&T Plea Challenging MMRDA’s ₹6,000 Crore Thane-Bhayandar Tunnel Tender Process; Orders Sealed Cover For Elevated Road Bids

Mumbai: Observing that it is a “mega-infrastructure project of significant public importance”, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petitions filed by infrastructure major Larsen & Toubro (L&T) challenging the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA)’s decision not to inform the company of the status of its bid in the Rs 6,000 crore Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayandar tunnel and elevated road project.

A vacation bench of Justices Kamal Khata and Arif Doctor refused to stay the opening of financial bids. However, the court directed that the price bids for the elevated road tender be preserved in a sealed cover for a week after the award of the contract, in accordance with tender norms. In contrast, the court declined to extend similar protection to price bids for the Thane tunnel project.

“Conversely, no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the Petitioner if all rights and contentions of the Petitioner are kept open to challenge the rejection of the Petitioner’s technical bid as well as the award of the contract,” the judges observed. “The rights of the Petitioner would remain intact, as opposed to the grave prejudice that would be caused in the case of any delay to the project.”

The court took note of a statement by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for MMRDA, that “whatever happens hereafter will be subject to the Supreme Court’s order.” He, along with senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, stressed that “time is of the essence” and clarified that the bids “would not be destroyed.”

L&T had submitted its technical and financial bids on December 30, 2024. The technical bids were opened on January 1, 2025, but the company claimed it received no communication thereafter, prompting it to move court.

The company alleged that MMRDA’s silence violated principles of fairness and transparency. However, the court held that L&T had failed to mention or address key clauses in the tender that barred disclosure of bid evaluations until the award of contract.

“It was incumbent upon the Petitioner to have set out the said clauses and explained why the same were not applicable,” the court said. “The Petitioner has admittedly not done so, and thus we find much merit in the submission of Mr. Mukul Rohatgi (representing MMRDA) that the Petitioner is guilty of suppression of a material fact.”

“It is not open to a party who seeks equity to play ‘hide and seek’ or to ‘pick and choose’ certain facts and to suppress and/or conceal other facts,” the bench added.

Regarding the tunnel bid, the court acknowledged senior counsel Janak Dwarkadas’s argument that the tendering process may not comply with Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) guidelines, which require disclosure of disqualification reasons after contract award. Still, the bench ruled that L&T could not now challenge conditions it had already accepted.

The judges also rejected L&T’s claims of delay by MMRDA. “Given the magnitude of the project, such evaluation would take time. Even assuming there has been a delay, that itself does not mean the project can be further delayed,” they said.

Following the verdict, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi requested that financial bids submitted electronically be preserved until the award is communicated. Granting the unopposed request, the court directed that bids for the elevated road be preserved for two weeks from the date of communication.