L&T vs MEIL: Bid Twist in 10 Minutes
• MMRDA’s Bid Rush Sparks Outcry
• 10-Minute Tender Twist Exposed
• Sprouts SIT Probes Tender Haste
Unmesh Gujarathi
Sprouts News Exclusive
Contact: +91 9322755098
Sprouts News Exclusive
Contact: +91 9322755098
MMRDA faces scrutiny for opening price bids just 10 minutes after a High Court directive, bypassing procedural norms. The Sprouts News SIT investigates alleged favoritism, lack of clearances, and rushed tendering. Experts question urgency, funding clarity, and possible misuse of fake bank guarantees in this controversial infrastructure project.
Contents
- L&T vs MEIL: Bid Twist in 10 Minutes
- L&T vs MEIL Bid: Tender Timeline Raises Questions on Bidder Fairness and Transparency
- High Court Intervention and Delayed Yet Sudden Actions
- Sprouts News SIT Probes Alleged Favoritism and Procedural Flaws
- Also Read: PG Resident Doctors Suffer as DMER Defies NMC Orders in Maharashtra.
- Related Article: L&T vs MMRDA: ₹14,000 Cr Tunnel Dispute Hits Supreme Court.
- L&T vs MEIL: Funding Uncertainty and Legal Grey Zones Persist
- Real Estate and Infrastructure Experts Call for Accountability
On May 20, 2025, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) raised serious transparency questions by opening the price bids for a key infrastructure project just 10 minutes after the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s oral directive at 10:40 AM. The bid opening at 10:50 AM, without awaiting the formal written order, has triggered sharp criticism.
The critical question is how MMRDA communicated the bid opening to participating firms with such urgency. Was there prior intimation—suggesting confidence in the High Court’s decision? Or was it incumbent upon the authority to wait for the official written order before proceeding?
L&T vs MEIL Bid: Tender Timeline Raises Questions on Bidder Fairness and Transparency
The bid process for this high-value project was marked by unexplained haste and deviations from standard procurement norms. While the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was released on July 27, 2024, the actual project documents were uploaded on the e-procurement portal only by September 13, 2024. Despite this delay, the submission deadline of October 3 remained unchanged initially.
Later, modified conditions and clarifications were shared with bidders on October 1, granting only a four-day extension—until October 7. This contradicts the guidelines of MMRDA and the Public Works Department (PWD), which mandate at least a two-week window following corrigenda or amendments.
This abnormal urgency came just days before the Maharashtra election code of conduct came into effect on October 15, 2024, hinting at possible political motivations.
High Court Intervention and Delayed Yet Sudden Actions
Due to insufficient data and excessive liabilities imposed on bidders, the Bombay High Court had initially stayed the tender process. Despite the court’s intervention, MMRDA resumed its actions after months of dormancy.
The technical bids, submitted on December 30, 2024, were opened on January 1, 2025, from five major players: L&T, Afcons, Megha Engineering, Navayuga, and Rithwik. However, no substantial progress followed for over four months.
Then, unexpectedly, on May 13, 2025, MMRDA decided to open the price bids. Following another brief legal pause, the financial bids were opened on May 20, declaring Megha Engineering and its joint ventures as the lowest bidders for both packages. Navayuga, another Telangana-based firm, was named the second-lowest in both cases.
Sprouts News SIT Probes Alleged Favoritism and Procedural Flaws
The Sprouts News Special Investigation Team (SIT) has initiated a deep dive into MMRDA’s conduct. Questions have been raised over the selective urgency displayed in the bid process. Why did MMRDA take months to upload tender documents and evaluate bids, but rush the price bid opening in mere minutes?
Another critical point is the lack of statutory clearances—land acquisition, environmental approvals, and financial viability are all pending. Yet, MMRDA appears determined to award the contract prematurely. Analysts speculate if this urgency relates to the issuance of advances backed by controversial instruments, such as alleged fake bank guarantees from Euro Exim Bank.
Also Read: PG Resident Doctors Suffer as DMER Defies NMC Orders in Maharashtra.
Related Article: L&T vs MMRDA: ₹14,000 Cr Tunnel Dispute Hits Supreme Court.
L&T vs MEIL: Funding Uncertainty and Legal Grey Zones Persist
MMRDA has not clarified the funding structure of the project. This raises the risk of another fiscal crisis if disbursements are made before necessary clearances. Furthermore, the situation echoes past scandals where public funds were compromised due to opaque banking instruments.
Extracts from the Bombay High Court’s stay order clearly highlight that:
•The tendering procedure contradicts PWD and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) guidelines.
•The Information to Bidders (ITB) section is ambiguous and allows discretionary decision-making.
•The State government is barred from using the excuse of “fait accompli” to justify any post-facto regularization of contracts.
The court has explicitly reserved the rights of petitioners and mandated that price bids be held in abeyance for two weeks after proper notice is served.
Real Estate and Infrastructure Experts Call for Accountability
Experts in urban infrastructure and tender regulation are alarmed by this pattern of administrative haste. Transparency in public procurement, especially for large-scale infrastructure projects, is vital to prevent financial malpractice and ensure public trust.
The Sprouts News SIT Team continues its independent investigation into whether MMRDA’s actions are influenced by political pressures or vested interests. Stakeholders urge the judiciary and audit authorities to scrutinize this matter thoroughly, as this case may become a benchmark in reforming India’s urban infrastructure procurement systems.
