No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO.32968 OF 2024
V. Ravi Prakash,
President, RTV ….. Petitioner
Vs.
Mumbai Metropolitan Region
Development Authority & Ors. ….. Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.5415 OF 2025
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO.32968 OF 2024
Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. ….. Applicant
In the matter between:
V. Ravi Prakash,
President, RTV ….. Petitioner
Vs.
Mumbai Metropolitan Region
Development Authority & Ors. ….. Respondents
Mr.Prashant Bhushan, Senior Advocate (through VC)
a/w. Ms. Neha Rathi, Kajal Giri and Mr. Arjun Kadam for
the petitioner
Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General (through VC) a/w.
Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General, Mr. Siddharth
Dharmadhikari, Mr. Jay Sanklecha, Mr. Abhishek Karnik,
Mr. Aditya Krishna and Ms. Payal Vardhan for respondent
No.1.
Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General with Smt. Pooja
Patil, AGP for respondent No.2 – State
Mr.Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate (through VC) a/w.
BASAVRAJ
GURAPPA
PATIL
Digitally signed by
BASAVRAJ
GURAPPA PATIL
Date: 2025.03.18
15:13:44 +0530 2025:BHC-OS:4320-DB
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|2
Mr. Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vivek Reddy,
Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Shrinivas Bobde, Mr. Rohan
Dakshini, Mr. Vishesh Malviya, Ms. Nikita Mishra,
Ms. Janaki Garde, Mr. Tejas Popat, Ms. Rakshita Singh,
Mr, Raghav Dharmadhikari, Mr. Himanshu Saraswat,
Mr. K.Pratik Reddy i/b. Rashmikant & Partners for
respondent No.3 and for applicant in IAL/5415/2025.
Mr. Amit Ambu Satyarthi and Mr. Varun Chugh i/b. Alph
Legal Consultants for respondent No.3
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Pravin H. Padave,
Mr. Bijish Balan i/b. ASR and Associates for respondent
No.4
Mr. Ram Apte, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sagar Patil,
Ms. Suruchi Rokade i/b. Mr. Mayuresh Legal for
respondent No.8
CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
BHARATI DANGRE, J.
RESERVED ON : MARCH 5, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 18, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER : CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. In this Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the petitioner, inter
alia; is seeking an investigation by CBI or an SIT into the alleged
fraud bank guarantees furnished by respondent No.3 – Megha
Engineering Infrastructure Ltd. (MEIL) which has been accepted
by respondent No.1 i.e. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development
Authority (MMRDA). The challenge to the bank guarantees is
made on the ground that the same have been issued by the Euro
Exim Bank, which is neither a scheduled bank nor a commercial
bank, approved by the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioner also
seeks a direction to the MMRDA to cancel the contract awarded to
MEIL. The facts leading to filing of this PIL need mention, which
are stated infra. ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|3
(I) FACTS:
2. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued on 12
th
May
2023 for construction of a twin tube road tunnel between Thane
and Borivali in Mumbai. The MEIL, in the aforesaid RFP, was
declared the preferred bidder and on 8
th
May 2023, a Letter of
Acceptance (LoA) was issued to it. The MEIL furnished
performance bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.92.67 crores and
Rs.88.18 crores, issued by Canara Bank for the project in
question. The MEIL has also furnished the performance bank
guarantees issued by Euro Exim Bank.
3. The petitioner claims himself to be an investigative
journalist. He learnt that the aforesaid bank guarantees are
fraudulent, as the Euro Exim Bank is neither a scheduled bank nor
a commercial bank, approved by the Reserve Bank of India. On
20
th
February 2025, the PIL petition was listed for orders on
admission, however, a preliminary objection was filed with regard
to the maintainability of the petition and the learned Counsel for
the petitioner was granted time to file reply to the same, which
was filed.
4. A three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in State of
Jharkhand Vs. Shivshankar Sharma
1
, in paragraph 19 held as
under:
“PARA 19…. What is of crucial significance in a Public Interest
Litigation is the bona fide of the petitioner who files the PIL.
It is an extremely relevant consideration and must be
examined by the Court at the very threshold itself and this has
to be done irrespective of the seemingly high public cause
being espoused by the petitioner in a PIL.”
1
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|4
5. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, we have heard
learned Counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection raised
on behalf of the respondents with regard to bona fides, locus and
maintainability of this PIL and propose to deal with the same
before adverting to merits of the matter.
(II) SUBMISSIONS ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BY
RESPONDENTS:
6. Learned Senior Counsel for MEIL submits that subsequent
to mentioning of the petition, the petitioner has posted tweets on
12
th
February 2025 by making egregious allegations against the
Government authorities as well as this Court and has deliberately
scandalised the Court. It is urged that the petitioner has
committed criminal contempt. It is submitted that the petitioner
has deliberately suppressed material facts regarding prior
shareholder disputes, civil and criminal disputes with MEIL, which
clearly shows that this petition is motivated and not bona fide. In
this connection, our attention has been invited to the averments
made in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the interim application
seeking dismissal of the PIL. It is contended that the petitioner
has no locus to challenge the Government tender and public works
contract which has been issued and framed in public interest.
7. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is in willful breach
of Rule 5 and 7 of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation
Rules, 2010 (Rules 2010) and has filed this frivolous and mala
fide litigation. It is also urged that the petitioner has made the
following breaches/violations of the Rules 2010 :-
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|5
“(a) Non-disclosure of the details of the litigation
between the Petitioner and this Respondent which have
a legal nexus with the Petition.
(b) Failure to annex an affidavit stating that he has
no personal gain, private motive or oblique reason in
filing the Petition.
(c) Failure to file an undertaking to pay costs.
(d) Failure to file an undertaking that he will disclose
his source of information, if and when called upon by this
Hon'ble Court.”
Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
8. It is contended that continuation of the project is in larger
public interest and the PIL is liable to be dismissed in-limine with
exemplary costs. It is urged that FIR be directed to be registered
against the petitioner to investigate the petitioner’s source of
access to documents being Exhibits H, I, J1, J2, K and Q annexed
to the PIL. It is also submitted that this Court should take
cognizance and initiate criminal proceedings against the
petitioner.
9. Learned Solicitor General submitted that bona fide of the
petitioner is relevant factor while considering the grant of a
prerogative writ in PIL. It is further submitted that the petitioner
is not entitled to any indulgence as the petitioner has not
approached this Court with clean hands. It is also submitted that
scandalizing the Court is serious misdemeanour and must result
in serious consequences. It is submitted that the petitioner, by
his tweets, scandalised the Court which is contemptuous and must
result in dismissal of the petition. In support of his submissions ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|6
reliance has been placed on the decisions of Supreme court in
Arundhati Roy, In Re
2
, D.C. Saxena (Dr) v. Hon'ble The
Chief Justice of India
3
, E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad Vs. t.
Narayanan Nambiar
4
, Leila David (6) Vs. State of
Maharashtra
5
, Ram Niranjan Roy Vs. State of Bihar
6
.
10. Learned Advocate General for respondent No.2 – State
submitted that the tweets of the petitioner are instruments o f
scandalization of this Court and amount to criminal contempt. The
tweets of the petitioner tantamount to interference with the
administration of justice and therefore, criminal contempt should
be initiated against the petitioner. In support of his submissions
reliance has been placed on decisions of Supreme Court in Hira
Lal Dixit Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
7
and In RE : P.C. Sen
8
.
(III) REPLY BY THE PETITIONER:
11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, at the outset,
submitted that the tweets of the petitioner are inappropriate and
when the Counsel got to know about the tweets, petitioner was
advised to take-down the tweets which were taken down from
social media platform in five days. It is further submitted that the
slap suits have been filed against the petitioner who had exposed
large scale corruption. It is pointed out that the litigation pointed
2
(2002) 3 SCC 343
3
(1996) 5 SCC 216
4
(1970) 2 SCC 325
5
(2009) 10 SCC 337
6
(2014) 12 SCC 11
7
(1954) 2 SCC 325
8
1968 SCC OnLine SC 141 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|7
out in the reply of MEIL have no legal nexus with the subject
matter of this writ petition and therefore, it was not obligatory on
the petitioner to disclose the same. It is further submitted that in
paragraph 25, the details of the suit which is a relevant for
determination of controversy involved in the petition, have been
disclosed by the petitioner.
12. It is also urged that in case, this Court comes to a
conclusion that the petitioner is an inappropriate person to take
forward the proceeding of this PIL, this Court must appoint an
Amicus to forward this PIL, as it raises a genuine issue. It is
submitted that the petitioner has complied with the mandate
contained in Rule 5 and 7 of the Rules 2010 framed by this Court.
(IV) REJOINDER REPLY:
13. By way of rejoinder reply, learned Counsel for MEIL
submitted that in the reply filed to the preliminary objection, it
has not been stated that the petitioner had removed tweets from
social media platform. It is contended that the defence of removal
of tweets is an after-thought. Learned Solicitor General has
pointed out that the tender was issued in which MEIL has been
emerged as a highest bidder. It is contended that the MEIL has
furnished performance bank guarantees which were issued by
Canara Bank i.e. the scheduled bank and the bank guarantees
furnished by the Euro Exim Bank have been authenticated by the
Bank of Maharashtra and the Bank of India. It is submitted that
filing of the instant writ petition, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, amounts to gross abuse of process of law.
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|8
(V) DEVELOPMENT OF PIL:
14. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court in a PIL in State of
Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal
9
dealt with a challenge
to appointment of an Advocate General. The origin and
development of PIL has been traced by the Supreme Court in the
said case and the same was divided into three phases. Phase- I
deals with the cases where the directions and orders are passed
primarily to protect fundamental rights of marginalized groups and
sections of the society. Phase-II deals with cases pertaining to
protection and preservation of ecology, environment, forests,
wildlife and mountains. Phase-III deals with directions by the
Courts in maintaining the probity, transparency and integrity in
the governance. In the instant case we are concerned with the
Phase-III. The Supreme Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal
(supra) noted its decisions in Vineet Narain & Ors. Vs. Union
of India & Anr.
10
, Rajiv Ranjan Singh ‘Lalan’ (III) & Anr. Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
11
, M.C.Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
12
and Centre for Public Interest
Litigation Vs. Union of India & Anr.
13
and it was held that the
aforesaid cases were entertained to ensure that in governance of
State there is a transparency and no extraneous considerations
are taken into account except public interest. The said decisions
of Supreme Court dealt with probity in governance or corruption
in public life.
9
2010(3) SCC 402
10
(1998)1 SCC 226
11
(2006) 6 SCC 613
12
(2007) 1 SCC 110
13
(2003) 7 SCC 532 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|9
15. In Balco Employees’ Union (Regd) Vs. Union of India
& Ors.
14
, the Supreme Court noticed that in recent times there
are increasing instances of abuse of PIL and therefore, the Court
devised strategies to ensure that the PIL is not utilized for
suspicious products of mischief viz., (i) limited standing to persons
acting bona fide (ii) imposition of exemplary costs and (iii) High
Courts are asked to be more selective in entertaining PILs. In
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
15
it was held that PIL is a weapon which is to be used with great
care and circumspection and the Court must not allow its process
to be abused for oblique considerations. It was further held that
PIL, which is now an important field of administrative law, should
not be ‘publicity interest litigation’, ‘private interest litigation’,
‘politics interest litigation’ or ‘paise income litigation’. It was also
held that there has to be real and genuine public interest and not
merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of wishfu l
thinking. Similar view was taken in Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v.
Prem Chandra Mishra
16
and it was held that the Court has to be
satisfied with the credentials of the applicant and it should avoid
mischievous petitions which are filed with oblique motive. It was
further held that Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with
imposter, busy bodies and meddlesome interlopers impersonating
as public spirited holy-men. In Tehseen Poonawala Vs. Union
of India and Anr.
17
, in paragraph 98 it has been held as under:
“98. The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious
matter of concern for the judicial process. Both this Court and
14
(2002) 2 SCC 333
15
(2005) 1 SCC 590
16
(2007) 14 SCC 281
17
(2018) 6 SCC 72 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|10
the High Courts are flooded with litigations and are burdened
by arrears. Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly
invoking the public interest detract from the time and
attention which courts must devote to genuine causes. This
Court has a long list of pending cases where the personal
liberty of citizens is involved. Those who await trial or the
resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a
legitimate expectation of early justice. It is a travesty of
justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed
by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in
the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to
promote a personal, business or political agenda. This has
spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. There is
a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to
continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial
system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its
time and resources to cases which legitimately require
attention. Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to
the credibility of the judicial process. This has the propensity
of endangering the credibility of other institutions and
undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law.
This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to
settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be
resolved in a competitive market for goods and services.
Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of
democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in
and out of office. Courts resolve disputes about legal rights
and entitlements. Courts protect the rule of law. There is a
danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade,
if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the
judicial space.”
16. The Supreme Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra)
thought it imperative to streamline the PIL and with a view to
preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, issued following
directions in paragraph 181 of the judgment:
“181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present
case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court
and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to pre-
serve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imper-
ative to issue the following directions:
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|11
(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL
and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extrane-
ous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own
procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it
would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formu-
late rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging
the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request
that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules,
should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar
General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy
of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary
General of this Court immediately thereafter.
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of
the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding
the correctness of the contents of the petition before enter-
taining a PIL.
(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial
public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which in-
volves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be
given priority over other petitions.
(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure
that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or
public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no
personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing
the public interest litigation.
(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed
by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be
discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting sim-
ilar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions
filed for extraneous considerations.”
17. The parameters for exercise of jurisdiction by superior
courts in PIL succinctly laid down in Balwant Singh Chaufal
(supra) were reiterated in P.R.Narahari Rao Vs. State of ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|12
Kerala & Ors.
18
, Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of
Maharashtra
19
, Anirudh Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi & Ors.
20
, Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chetan
Kamble & Ors.
21
and Anil Agarwal Foundation Vs. State of
Orissa & Ors.
22
(VI) BOMBAY HIGH COURT PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION RULES, 2010
18. In view of directions issued in Balwant Singh Chaufal
(supra) to frame the rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and
to discourage PIL filed with oblique motive, the Bombay High
Court has framed the rules viz. Bombay High Court Public Interest
Litigation Rules 2010. Rules 5 and 7 of the aforesaid Rules which
are relevant for the purposes of present controversy, are
extracted below for the facility of reference:
“Rule -5
In the petition to be filed under Clause (e) of Rule 4, the
petitioner shall disclose.-
(a) petitioner's name, complete postal and E-mail
address, phone number, proof regarding personal
identification, occupation and annual income, PAN number
and National Unique Identity Card, if any and registration
under the Act.
(b) the facts constituting the cause of action.
(c) the nature of injury caused or likely to be caused to
the public.
18
(2012) 12 SCC 451
19
(2013) 4 SCC 465
20
(2015) 7 SCC 779
21
2022 SCC OnLine SC 246
22
2023 SCC OnLine SC 407 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|13
(d) the nature and extent of the personal interest, if any,
of the petitioner(s).
(e) details regarding any civil, criminal or revenue
litigation, involving the petitioner or any of the petitioners,
which has or could have a legal nexus with the issue(s)
involved in the Public Interest Litigation.
(f) petitioner's locus standi, except in a petition filed in
public law interest.
Rule-7
The Petitioner(s) while filing a Public Interest Litigation
Petition under Clause (e) of Rule 4 shall.-
(a) annex to the petition an affidavit stating that there is
no personal gain, private motive or oblique reason in filing the
Public Interest Litigation and
(b) file an affidavit undertaking to pay costs as ordered
by the Court, if it is ultimately held that the petition is frivolous
or has been filed for extraneous considerations or that it lacks
bona fides.
(c) file an undertaking that he/it will disclose the source
of his/its information, leading to the filing of the Public Interest
Litigation, if and when called upon by the Court, to do so.
(d) annex to the petition, a copy of the registration
certificate and an authorization resolution to file a PIL Petition
when the petition is filed by an Association or a like body."
(VII) REQUIREMENT TO APPROACH THE COURT WITH
CLEAN HANDS:
19. It is equally well settled proposition that a person who
comes to the Court seeking a relief in PIL must come not only with
clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean
heart, clean mind and clean objective. [See: RAMJAS ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|14
FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA
23
and K.R. SHRINIVAS
Vs. R.M.PREMCHAND & Ors.
24
]. In KISHORE SAMRITE VS.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS .
25
, the Supreme Court again reiterated
the need that litigant must state correct facts and must come with
clean hands. It was further held that the litigant must approach
the Court not only with clean hands but with a clean mind, clean
heart and clean objective and suppression or concealment of
material facts is impermissible to a litigant or even as a technique
of advocacy. The Supreme Court has recapitulated the principles
governing the obligation of the litigant while approaching the
Court for redressal of any grievance and consequences of abuse
of process of Court which are extracted below:
“(i) Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon liti-
gants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, ini-
tiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to
the courts with “unclean hands”. Courts have held that such
litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the
case nor are entitled to any relief.
(ii) The people, who approach the court for relief on an
ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court that
they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court
and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of
the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant.
(iii) The obligation to approach the court with clean hands
is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated
by this Court.
(iv) Quests for personal gains have become so intense
that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter
of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court
proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent
23
AIR 1993 SC 852
24
(1994) 6 SCC 620
25
(2013) 2 SCC 398 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|15
have overshadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small
gains.
(v) A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice
or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands
is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
(vi) The court must ensure that its process is not abused
and in order to prevent abuse of process of court, it would be
justified even in insisting on furnishing of security and in cases
of serious abuse, the court would be duty-bound to impose
heavy costs.
(vii) Wherever a public interest is invoked, the court must
examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine
public interest involved. The stream of justice should not be
allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.
(viii) The court, especially the Supreme Court, has to main-
tain the strictest vigilance over the abuse of process of court
and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted
“visa”. Many societal pollutants create new problems of unre-
dressed grievances and the court should endure to take cases
where the justice of the lis well justifies it.
(Refer : Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. [(2010) 2 SCC 114 : Amar
Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 69 and State of
Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402)”
20. In a recent decision viz. in Kusha Duruka Vs. State of
Odisha
26
it was held that it is now well settled that a litigant who
attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure
fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief,
interim or final. It was further held that suppression of material
facts from the Court of law is actually playing fraud with the Court.
In Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh
Education Society
27
it was held that it is not for the litigant to
26
(2024) 4 SCC 432
27
(2013) 11 SCC 531 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|16
decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is
not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the
facts of the case and leave the decision making to the Court.
(VIII) LAW RELATING TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT:
21. The law relating to contempt of Court is well settled. Any
act done or any writing published, which is calculated to bring a
Court or a Judge into a contempt or to lower his authority or to
interfere with due course of justice or lawful process of Court is
contempt of Court. In order to constitute a criminal contempt, it
is not necessary that there should in fact be an actual interference
with the course of administration of justice but it is enough if
offending publication is likely or if it tends to interfere with proper
administration of justice [SEE : HIRA LAL DIXIT (supra) and
IN RE: P.C.SEN (supra)].
(IX) ISSUES:
22. In the backdrop of afore-settled legal principles, we
advert to the issues which arise for consideration, which can be
summarized as under:
(i) Whether the petitioner’s conduct in publishing tweets is
bona fide and whether the same amounts to scandalizing
the Court?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts?
(iii) Whether the petitioner has complied with mandatory
requirements contained in Rule 5 and 7 of the Rules
2010.
(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief?
(v) Whether the petitioner has committed criminal contempt ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|17
and whether any proceeding needs to be initiated against
him?
Now, we proceed to deal with the issues ad-seriatim.
(a) First issue:
23. The petitioner has filed this PIL on 23
rd
October 2024.
Learned senior Counsel for the petitioner mentioned the matter
before this Court on 12
th
February 2025. Thereupon, the matter
was directed to be listed on 20
th
February 2025. Immediately
after mentioning the matter, on 12
th
February 2025 the petitioner
published tweets against the Government authorities and the High
Court. The tweets have been annexed as Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B
with the interim application filed by respondent No.3 seeking
dismissal of the PIL. It is noteworthy to mention that neither the
factum of making the tweets nor the contents of the tweets have
been denied by the petitioner in the reply affidavit filed to the
preliminary objection filed on behalf of respondent No.3. The
conduct of the petitioner in publishing the tweets after mentioning
the matter before this Court is not bona fide. We need not deal
with the conduct of the petitioner in publishing the tweets any
further as learned senior Counsel for the petitioner has stated that
tweets of the petitioner were inappropriate and the petitioner was
advised by the Counsel to take down the tweets. It is pointed out
that the tweets were taken down from the social medial platform
within a period of five days from the advice given by the Counsel
to the petitioner. For the aforementioned reasons, it is held that
conduct of the petitioner in publishing the tweets is not bona fide
and same tantamount to scandalizing the Court. The first issue is ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|18
therefore, answered in the affirmative.
(b) Second Issue:
24. Now we deal with the second issue viz. whether the
petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts. In Bhaskar Laxman
Jadhav (supra) it was held that it is not for the litigant to decide
what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not
material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts
of the case and leave the decision making to the Court. In the
instant case, admittedly the petitioner has not mentioned the
details of litigation pending between the parties. In paragraph 7
of the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, in response to the
interim application seeking dismissal of the writ petition, the
petitioner himself has produced the details of cases in the form of
a chart along with remarks of the petitioner. The MEIL has filed a
rejoinder to the response filed on behalf of the petitioner along
with remarks. The details of the cases pending between the
parties as well as the remarks made by the petitioner and MEIL
are extracted below for the facility of reference:
Sr.
No.
Case details Remarks of
petitioner
Remarks of
MEIL
1 Defamation Suit O. S.
No. 8/2022 titled
MEIL V TNM Web filed
before First Additional
District Judge,
Khammam
Petitioner is not a
party to the said
defamation suit.
Hence allegation of
suppression is
unfounded and
baseless since
petitioner has no
relation with the said
matter.
The Petitioner
claims that he is
not a party to the
defamation suit.
This is a
misleading
statement. This is
a clear from the
following :
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|19
Filed by respondent
No.3 against various
media houses.
CMA 184 of 2022 was
filed in Hon’ble High
Court of Telangana
and the interim order
passed by the District
Court was set aside
by the Hon’ble High
Court.
This case is popularly
known among
Journalist Circles.
a) “Toli velugu”, a
news publishing
website and
youtube channel
is a Defendant in
both the Suits.
“Toli Velugu” is a
product operated
and controlled by
RTV. In the PIL,
Petitioner
describes himself
as the President of
RTV. The LinkedIn
page of RTV
describes the
Petitioner as its
Founder.
b) The address of
RTV (as described
in the cause title
of the PIL) is the
same as Toli
Velugu’s address
(evident from the
screenshot of its
YouTube
Channel).
c) The Petitioner
regularly presents
news items on
“Toli Velugu’s”
Youtube Channel,
more particularly
against the
Answering
Respondent in
relation to the
subject matter of
this PIL.
d) Impleadment
Petition has been
filed seeking to
2 Defamation suit
O.S.No.510/2022
titled MEIL V TNM
Web LLP filed before
Kukatpally Dist.
Court.
Petitioner is not a
party to the said
defamation suit.
Hence allegation of
suppression is
unfounded and
baseless since
petitioner has no
relation with the said
matter.
The Defendants filed
a revision petitions
vide CMA 22 of 2023,
CMA 45 of 2023 and
CMA 51 of 2023
against ad-interim
order in High Court
and is currently
Pending CAV (Case
awaiting verdict).
This case is popularly
known among
Journalist Circles. ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|20
add RTV and the
Petitioner as
Defendant Nos. 21
and 22 in O.S. No.
510/2022. Notice
has been issued.
The relevant
screenshots are
annexed herewith
as Exhibits A-1
to A-5. The
Answering
Respondent
craves leave of
this Hon’ble Court
to refer to the
relevant videos
when produced.
3 CC No.501/2023 filed
by MEIL in II Junior
Civil Judge cum XIII
MM Court, Kukatpally
against Tolivelugu &
Gajjala Narsimha
Reddy for
defamation.
The petitioner is not a
party to the said
private complaint. As
per the case status
available on e-courts
the petitioner is not a
party to proceedings.
Hence allegation of
suppression is
unfounded and
baseless since
petitioner has no
relation with the said
matter.
In the Criminal
Complaint, “Toli
velugu” is an
accused. As stated
above, “Toli
velugu” is a
product of RTV.
4 Criminal Defamation
CC No.501/2023
titled MEIL V.
Tolivelugu & Gajjala
Narsimha Reddy filed
before II Junior Civil
Judge cum XIII MM
Court, Kukatpally.
The petitioner is not a
party to the said
criminal defamation
suit. Hence,
allegation of
suppression is
unfounded and
baseless since
petitioner has no
relation with the said
matter.
-----
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|21
5 Cyber Complaint
No.99/2019 under
sec 406 IPC and sec
66D IT Act.
MEIL is not a party to
the said proceedings.
Petitioner is initially
not arrayed as
accused in the FIR 99
of 2019. Later on,
the Petitioner was
arrayed as accused.
The petitioner had
filed quashing vide
CRLP No.6622 of
2019 and
investigation was
stayed by the Hon’ble
High Court and
currently the matter
is coming up for
adjudication. The
Complainant is one T.
Krishna Prasad,
representative of
iVision Media India
Private Limited.
Petitioner claims
that MEIL is not a
party to the said
proceedings.
However,
complaint has
been filed by
Associated
Broadcasting Co.
Ltd. (“ABCL”) in
which the
Answering
Respondent has a
substantial
interest as set out
in Row 7 below
and Exhibit-C of
Interlocutory
Application.
6 ED Proceedings under
PMLA qua ECIR
No.17/HYZO of 2020.
MEIL is not a party to
the said proceedings.
The Complainant in
FIR 900 of 2019
(predicate offence) is
Associated
Broadcasting
Company Private
Limited (TV9
Company) and not
MEIL. FIR No.900
has been closed by
the police.
Petitioner’s quashing
petition for quashing
of ECIR No.17/HYZO
is currently pending
adjudication.
These proceedings
are also initiated
by ABCL.
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|22
7 FIR/Crime
No.373/2022 filed by
Mr. Ch Pedda
Subbaiah
u/s.505(1)(b)(c),
505(2), 506, 504,
120B of IPC with PS
Balanagar.
The petitioner is not
an accused in this FIR
and no summons has
been issued to him.
Hence allegation of
suppression is
unfounded and
baseless since
petitioner has no
relation with the said
matter.
FIR was filed by a
Director of
Answering
Respondent
against “Toli
velugu” and the
PIL Petitioner.
The said FIRs
specifically states
that Petitioner is
promoter of “Toli
velugu.”
The Answering
Respondent on
24.02.2025
received
knowledge that
the investigating
officer has filed a
closure report.
8 FIR/Crime
No.371/2022 filed by
MEIL
u/s.505(1)(b)(c),
505(2), 506, 504,
120B of IPC with PS
Balanagar.
The petitioner is not
an accused in this FIR
and no summons has
been issued to him.
Hence allegation of
suppression is
unfounded and
baseless since
petitioner has no
relation with the said
matter.
PIL Petitioner
again misleads
that he is not
aware of this case.
The said case is
filed against “Toli
Velugu” and PIL
Petitioner, who
are Accused Nos.
1 and 2.
In the said FIR,
Chargesheet was
filed and the
concerned court
had taken
cognizance of the
same.
9 CP No. 310/24/HBD/
2019 before NCLT,
Hyderabad
MEIL is not party in
the said dispute.
Hence allegation of
The PIL Petitioner
mischievously
claims that there ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|23
suppression is
unfounded and
baseless since
respondent has no
relation with the said
dispute.
Respondent No.3 is
not a party to the
litigation in NCLT or
NCLAT and is not an
owner of Alanda
Media, therefore, it
cannot be said that
the dispute is
between petitioner
and MEIL.
MEIL only has
debentures, debt
instruments, in
Alanda Media and has
no equity shares. As
such MEIL cannot
claim ownership in
Alanda Media or in
TV9 as both are
corporate entities
especially basing on
the debentures
purchased by them.
Respondent No.3 is
only using it as a
ground to question
maintainability of the
instant petition, since
it has no argument on
merit with regard to
fraud bank
guarantees furnished
by it. Disclosure of
this information has
no legal nexus with
the issue involved in
the instant public
is no suppression
of this litigation.
The said Petition
was filed in NCLT
by the Petitioner
against Alanda
Media.
Answering
Respondent, holds
through its wholly
owned subsidiary
(MEIL Holdings), a
substantial
interest in Alanda
Media, wherein
Answering
Respondents
holds 259
Optionally
Convertible
Debentures worth
INR 259 Crores.
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|24
interest litigation and
hence the petitioner
is not duty-bound to
divulge every
litigation he is party
to.
10 O.S.No.708/2024 –
Delhi High Court
--- The petitioner
admits that there
is ongoing
litigation between
MEIL and the
petitioner. In the
said suit, the
answering
Respondent has
sued the PIL
petitioner on the
issuing bank
guarantees from
Euro Exim Bank.
However,
admittedly, does
not disclose the
required details of
the said litigation
in his purported
PIL.
25. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid litigation pending
between the parties, it is evident that the petitioner has no t
disclosed the details of the litigation pending between the parties
and has not approached the Court with clean hands. The
petitioner, therefore, is guilty of suppression of facts. The second
issue is answered in the affirmative.
(d) Third Issue:
26. In a writ petition filed as PIL, under Rule 5 of Rules 2010,
the petitioner is required to furnish the details of any civil, criminal ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|25
or revenue litigation involving the petitioner or any of the
petitioners which has or could have a legal nexus with the issues
involved in the PIL. In the instant PIL, the petitioner has not
furnished the details of the civil, criminal or revenue litigation
involving the petitioner and has not also failed to disclose the
litigation pending between the parties in relation to the subject
matter of the instant litigation. Thus, the petitioner has not
complied with mandate contained in Rule 5 of the Rules 2010.
Admittedly, the litigation is pending between the same parties
and in relation to the subject matter of the instant PIL i.e. the
contract in question. The contention of the petitioner that the
litigation pending between the parties does not have legal nexus
with the issues involved in the PIL, does not deserve acceptance
as the petitioner is under an obligation to disclose all the facts of
the case and leave the decision making, whether it is relevant or
irrelevant, to the Court. The petitioner has also not filed an
affidavit in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules 2010. Thus, it is evident
that the petitioner has not complied with the mandate contained
in Rule 5 and 7 of the Rules, 2010. Accordingly, the third issue is
also answered in the affirmative.
(e) Fourth Issue:
27. This brings us to the question of the petitioner’s
entitlement to the relief. The petitioner is admittedly guilty of
making inappropriate tweets which scandalize the court. The
petitioner is also guilty of suppression of facts. The instant PIL
has not been filed bona fide. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to examine the ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|26
claim of the petitioner on merits. The petitioner is not entitled to
any relief in this PIL. Accordingly, the fourth issue is answered.
(f) Fifth Issue:
28. Now, we proceed to deal with the fifth issue i.e. whether
the petitioner has committed criminal contempt and whether any
proceeding needs to be initiated against him. In RE :
S.MULGAOKAR
28
, it has been held that first rule of branch of
contempt power is a wise economy of use by the Court. The Court
also should not be hyper-sensitive even when its criticism
oversteps the limit. In Prashant Bhushan And Another, IN
RE
29
, a three Judge Bench of Supreme Court has held that
contempt jurisdiction is summary in nature and is required to be
exercised to uphold the majesty of law and of administration of
justice. However, the Court is required to be magnanimous when
the criticism is made of the Judges or of institution of
administration of justice. The tweets of the petitioner are against
the institution of administration of justice. In our opinion, the
tweet scandalises the Court. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has
committed criminal contempt. However, the Counsel for the
petitioner, in his submissions, has termed the tweets to be
inappropriate. The petitioner has acted upon the advice of his
counsel and has taken down the tweets from the social media
platform within a period of five days from the advice given to him.
Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, we do not propose to
initiate any contempt proceedings against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the fifth issue is answered.
28
(1978) 3 SCC 339
29
(2021) 1 SCC 745 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
32968.24-pil
Basavraj Page|27
(X) CONCLUSION:
29. In view of the preceding analysis, the Public Interest
Litigation is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
30. The interim application also stands disposed of.
(BHARATI DANGRE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:47:05 :::
Legal Notes
Add a Note....