Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday closed for judgment the petitions by construction major Larsen & Toubro (L&T) challenging non-intimation of their bid status from Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) for the ambitious Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayandar tunnel and elevated road project. Meanwhile, the court has continued the interim stay on the opening of the bids by MMRDA.
A vacation bench of Justices Kamal Khat and Arif Doctor reserved the order in L&T’s plea saying: “Closed for judgment. Till then interim (order) to continue.”
The HC had, on Wednesday asked MMRDA not to open the financial bids for the project for a day after hearing the petitioners and MMRDA’s counsels in detail. The interim stay on opening of bids will continue till the the final judgment.
The project, estimated to cost Rs 6,000 crore, includes a 9.8 km elevated road over Vasai Creek and is billed as the second longest such structure after the Atal Setu. It is proposed as an extension of the Mumbai Coastal Road Project.
L&T had submitted both technical and financial bids on December 30, 2024. The technical bids were opened by MMRDA on January 1, 2025, but L&T claimed it received no communication regarding the outcome.
On Thursday, L&T, represented by senior counsels Abhishek Singhvi and SU Kamdar, submitted that the MMRDA has failed to intimate them about its bid and emphasised that principles of fairness and transparency should be followed at all times.
However, SOlicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, representing MMRDA, countered that the clause in the tender specifically mentioned that only responsive bidders would be intimated. Since, L&T’s bid was found to be non-responsive, the company was not issued any communication.
Mehta said that the clause was inserted in the tender to avoid such unnecessary litigation. Rohatgi said the tender process was still in progress. “The unsuccessful bidders, namely, five in number, will be notified of their defects and their unresponsiveness. They can then constitute a proper challenge,” he added.
Following Kamdar’s arguments, the high court remarked that the company could instead challenge the tender conditions.
“We are saying they (MMRDA) will intimate you. (Tender) Clause says that only responsive bidder will be intimated. Your (L&T) remedy lies in challenging the tender condition,” the bench remarked. The bench then reserved order in the petition.
