Bombay HC Dismisses L&T's Plea In Thane-Bhayandar Tunnel Project; Directs MMRDA To Seal Price Bids For 2 Weeks

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by construction giant Larsen & Toubro (L&T) challenging the non-intimation of the status of its bid by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) for the Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayandar tunnel and elevated road project.

A vacation bench of Justices Kamal Khata and Arif Doctor, however, directed that the price bids submitted in the tender be kept in a sealed cover for a period of one week after the communication of the award, in accordance with the tender conditions.

“Whatever happens hereafter will be subject to the Supreme Court’s order,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing MMRDA, told the court. However, he emphasized that “time is of the essence” and the bids would not be destroyed.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for L&T, sought the court’s indulgence in maintaining the earlier stay on the opening of financial bids, but the court declined to continue it. “We are not continuing the stay which we had granted earlier,” the bench said.

L&T had approached the court after it was not intimated about the outcome of the technical bid process for the Rs 6,000 crore project, which includes a 9.8-km elevated road over Vasai Creek and is touted as the second longest in the country after the Atal Setu. L&T had submitted its technical and financial bids on December 30, 2024. The technical bids were opened on January 1, 2025, but the company claimed it received no communication thereafter.

The firm, represented by senior counsels Singhvi and SU Kamdar, had contended  that the MMRDA’s silence violated the principles of fairness and transparency in the tendering process. “Please stay for a reasonable time so we can appeal,” Kamdar urged the bench.

Countering this, Mehta, along with senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, had argued that the tender condition explicitly stated that only responsive bidders would be intimated. Since L&T’s bid was found to be non-responsive, the agency was under no obligation to communicate with the company.

“This clause was inserted to avoid such unnecessary litigation,” Mehta submitted. Rohatgi added, “The unsuccessful bidders, namely five in number, will be notified of their defects and their unresponsiveness. They can then constitute a proper challenge.”

In its order, the court directed that the price bids be “kept in sealed cover for a period of one week after communication of award as per ITB (Instructions to Bidders) cost,” to ensure no prejudice is caused to any party. The court clarified that the petition stood dismissed and made no order as to costs. Reasoned judgment copy will be made available later.