• Bombay HC Reserves Verdict in Megha Engineering Fraud Case
• Fake Bank Guarantees? ₹1,668 Crore Scam Under Scrutiny
• PIL or Publicity Stunt? High Court Debates Explosive Allegations
Unmesh Gujarathi
Sprouts News Exclusive
The Bombay High Court has reserved its judgment on an intervention application challenging the locus standi of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that seeks an investigation into allegedly fraudulent bank guarantees submitted by Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Ltd (MEIL) for the ₹16,600-crore Thane-Borivali twin tunnel project.
Speaking to Sprouts News, sources familiar with the case revealed that the PIL, filed by investigative journalist Ravi Prakash Velicheti, alleges that MEIL used fake bank guarantees to secure advance payments from the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), thereby endangering public funds and the project’s viability.
According to the PIL, the bank guarantees in question were issued by Euro Exim Bank, based in St Lucia- a Caribbean tax haven. The PIL argues that this bank is neither a scheduled bank, a commercial bank, nor a foreign bank recognized by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), raising serious doubts about the legitimacy of MEIL’s financial dealings.
The PIL further claims that despite knowing the bank guarantees were fraudulent, the authorities still advanced around ₹1,668.74 crore to MEIL in an illegal and unlawful manner.
• High Court Scrutinizes PIL’s Intentions
The case took a dramatic turn during the hearing when senior legal representatives of the Maharashtra government and MEIL questioned the PIL’s legitimacy. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for MMRDA, and senior counsel Darius Khambata, representing MEIL, argued that the PIL was motivated by personal interests rather than genuine public concern.
Speaking to Sprouts News, legal experts pointed out that their argument largely centered around a controversial social media post by Velicheti. In his post on X (formerly Twitter), Velicheti cast doubts on the fairness of the judicial system, stating:
The ball is in the Mumbai High Court, but let’s not kid ourselves, this isn’t a fair match. We’re up against a system that bends, kneels, and prostrates for the rich while trampling anyone who dares to speak up. Thank you, Prashant Bhushan, you’ve never bowed to power. But will the judiciary hold its ground, or will it crumble under the same old weight of political influence, celebrity cadre, and unholy money trails?”
Khambata argued that such statements discredit the judiciary and undermine the integrity of the legal process. He further accused Velicheti of using the PIL for publicity and concealing legal cases filed against him.
“PIL does not stand for ‘Personal’ or ‘Publicity’ Interest Litigation,” Khambata asserted, emphasizing that courts should not allow such petitions to be misused for personal gain.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also representing MEIL, supported this stance, claiming that Velicheti’s actions amounted to scandalizing the court’s authority.
Meanwhile, Maharashtra Advocate General Birendra Saraf backed the intervention application, stating that Velicheti’s social media comments amounted to criminal contempt and could set a dangerous precedent if allowed to go unchallenged.
Also Read: The Dark Reality of Online Betting Apps
• Prashant Bhushan Defends the PIL
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Velicheti, acknowledged that his client’s social media post was inappropriate but urged the court not to dismiss the PIL solely on that basis.
“If the court finds the petitioner inappropriate, remove him as a party and appoint an amicus curiae (a neutral legal expert). But don’t brush this issue under the carpet,” Bhushan argued.
Speaking to Sprouts News, Bhushan also questioned why such a high-powered legal team was opposing the PIL.
“It’s astonishing how far one can go to prevent the court from hearing a matter. Four senior advocates, along with the solicitor general, have come together to block this case from being heard on its merits. When someone exposes wrongdoing, big corporations immediately slap defamation suits to silence them,” Bhushan remarked.
Bhushan also dismissed the argument that Velicheti had failed to disclose past legal cases against him. He clarified that PIL petitioners are only required to disclose litigation relevant to the case at hand, not unrelated matters.
• Megha Engineering: A Controversial Giant
Speaking to Sprouts News, industry insiders pointed out that Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd (MEIL) has been at the center of multiple controversies in the past. While it has secured several high-value infrastructure contracts across India, allegations of financial irregularities and political favoritism have followed the company for years.
• Allegations of Political Patronage
Critics argue that MEIL has benefited from close ties with influential politicians, particularly in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. This alleged political backing has helped the company secure lucrative government contracts without proper scrutiny.
• Previous Allegations of Financial Misconduct
The fake bank guarantee controversy is not the first time MEIL has faced allegations of financial mismanagement. In the past, the company has been accused of:
– Misrepresenting financial information in project bids
– Delays and cost overruns in major infrastructure projects
– Questionable financial transactions with foreign banks
• Euro Exim Bank Under the Scanner
Euro Exim Bank, which reportedly issued MEIL’s bank guarantees, has raised suspicions due to its offshore location in St Lucia. Financial analysts warn that the bank lacks recognition from the RBI and is not subject to strict financial regulations, making it an unusual choice for a major infrastructure deal.
Experts speaking to Sprouts News questioned why MEIL opted for Euro Exim Bank instead of using established Indian or internationally recognized financial institutions.
• High-Stakes Verdict Expected
With the court reserving its judgment, all eyes are now on the Bombay High Court’s final decision. If the PIL is allowed to proceed, it could expose deeper irregularities in infrastructure financing and contract awarding. On the other hand, if it is dismissed, concerns about transparency and accountability in mega infrastructure projects could intensify.
With ₹16,600 crore in public funds at stake, the outcome of this case will have far-reaching consequences—not just for MEIL but also for governance and financial oversight in India’s infrastructure sector.
Sprouts News will continue to monitor this high-profile case and provide exclusive updates as the situation develops.
• TV9 Should Be Banned
Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd (MEIL) has reportedly launched TV9 news channel to manage its public relations and conceal its alleged illegal activities. The company is accused of committing fraud worth crores with the help of TV9, raising serious ethical and legal concerns. Given its involvement in financial irregularities, many believe that TV9 should be banned to prevent further misuse of media for corporate cover-ups.