Mumbai: Even as Supreme Court emphasised on the need for transparency in large public infrastructure projects, the Maharashtra government contended that disqualification of Larsen and Toubro from the Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayandar tunnel and the elevated road project was “not on flimsy or fanciful grounds”.
A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing an appeal by infrastructure giant Larsen & Toubro (L&T) against a Bombay High Court order that dismissed its plea related to over Rs 6,000-crore infrastructure project in Maharashtra.
The case concerns the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority’s (MMRDA) refusal to inform L&T about the status of its bid for two major infrastructure works – the Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayandar tunnel and the elevated road project. L&T claims it was never informed of its disqualification after submitting its technical and financial bids on December 30, 2024.
L&T claims it submitted its technical and financial bids on December 30, 2024, but was never informed of its disqualification. The company only learned about it during proceedings before the Bombay High Court, which had dismissed its plea earlier.
The bench raised serious questions over the lack of transparency in a Rs 6,000-crore infrastructure project in Maharashtra, observing that Rs 3,100 crore of public money was “not a small amount.”
“Rs 3,100 crore is not a small amount. It’s public money. The question is, a person who is building Central vista..,” the bench remarked. The Central Vista is India's administrative capital and a famous tourist site for locals and foreigners alike, and is being constructed by L&T. The bench, however, clarified that it had not yet examined the matter on merits.
Appearing for the MMRDA and the State of Maharashtra, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi defended the authority’s decision, stating, “Disqualification is not on flimsy or fanciful grounds. There are essential grounds — and the reports,” Mehta said. Rohatgi added: “The tender says we cannot disclose [the bid status].”
The court, however, appeared unconvinced. “This is an era of transparency,” the bench said. MMRDA has extensively relied on an apex court judgment which upheld similar tender conditions for another reason.
“Someday we may have to refer that judgment to a larger bench,” SC added, hinting at a possible revisit of the legal position on bidder communication. Responding to the court’s concerns, SG Mehta requested time, saying, “Let us have it tomorrow. I don’t think we are traveling in that direction.”
Even earlier, the apex court had expressed concern over the opacity in the bidding process and asked SG and Rohatgi to seek instructions from authority on its position in this regard.
Earlier, the Bombay High Court had dismissed L&T’s petitions, emphasising that the projects were of “significant public importance” and refused to stay the opening of financial bids. It directed, however, that the price bids for the elevated road tender be preserved in a sealed cover for a week following the contract award. The court declined to extend similar protection for the Thane tunnel project.
