In what came as a big relief to the Adani group, the Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by UAE-based Seclink Technologies challenging the Maharashtra government's decision to cancel its 2019 bid for the redevelopment of Dharavi slums and issue a fresh tender in 2022.

“There was no arbitrariness, unreasonableness or perversity in the decision of awarding the contract,” a HC division bench of justices DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar noted as it dismissed a petition filed by UAE-based Seclink Technologies Corporation, which has challenged the Maharashtra government’s decision to award the contract to Adani Properties Pvt Ltd.

The dismissal of Seclink’s petition should be seen in the context that the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) figured prominently during the 2024 Lok Sabha and State Assembly polls as it was a major bone of contention between the BJP-led MahaYuti and the Congress-led Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA). The Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena, which is a part of the Opposition MVA, had announced that if elected to power, it would cancel the DRP contract awarded to the Adani group. 

It may be recalled that M/s Seclink Technologies had emerged as the highest bidder for the project in 2018, but the tender was scrapped in 2019 by the Maharashtra government which initiated a fresh tender process in 2022 with modified conditions for the redevelopment project.

Seclink had originally won the bid for the Dharavi redevelopment project in 2019, surpassing Adani's bid of Rs 4,539 crore. However, in 2022, the Eknath Shinde-led MahaYuti government decided to include 45 acres of railway land in the project for slum rehabilitation, which was not part of the original proposal.

The state government sought advice from Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni on ways to accommodate the costs of acquiring the railway land. Kumbhakoni recommended a new tender to reflect the changes.

Consequently, the Maharashtra government cancelled the 2019 tender and launched a fresh bidding process in 2022.

On its part, Seclink argued that the inclusion of railway land had already been accounted for in the original 2019 tender, as the bid map included nearly 90 acres of railway land.

Questioning the government's rationale behind cancelling the bid,  Seclink argued that the new tender terms were designed to exclude them and benefit Adani. Seclink further stated that it suffered a financial loss of Rs 8,424 crore due to the cancellation of its bid.

Defending its decision to cancel the earlier tender awarded to Sealink, the Maharashtra government told the high court that the revised conditions were not arbitrary but had been developed after careful consideration of the changed economic landscape.

The state government argued that the financial and economic conditions had shifted significantly between 2019 and 2022, influenced by factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine war, fluctuations in the Rupee-USD exchange rate, interest rate volatility, and an overall high-risk investor environment.

The State government also argued that these changes necessitated adjustments to the project's terms, ensuring the development was financially viable and aligned with the larger public interest.

While rejecting the contentions made by Seclink that the revised tender  was "tailor made" to suit a particular firm of the private conglomerate, noting three bidders had participated in the process,  the HC bench said: “The petition lacks force and hence stands dismissed”.

 “As far as the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that tender conditions were tailor-made to suit a particular tenderer, we may observe that in response to the fresh tender three bidders had participated out of which two bids were found to be technically qualified. Meaning thereby, at least two bidders fulfilled the technical conditions and therefore, since there were more than two bidders in the field who participated out of which two technically qualified, it cannot be said that the tender conditions were tailor-made so as to suit only a particular bidder,” the HC bench noted.

Senior Advocate Virendra Tulzapurkar with advocates Mandar Soman, Suraj Iyer, Jenil Shah, Devendra Ailawadi, Mani Thevar, Anuj Singhand Abhishek Karnik instructed by Ganesh and Co appeared for the petitioner. Senior Advocate Milind Sathe with Additional Government Pleaders Jyoti Chavan, Atul Vanarse and advocates Bhushan Deshmukh, Aditya Mhase appeared for the State. Senior Advocate Ravindra Kadam with Senior Advocates Vikram Nankani, Zal Andhyarujina and advocates Rohan Kadam, Karan Bhide, Rati Patni, Kathleen Lobo, Vikrant Dere instructed by Wadia Ghandy & Co appeared for Adani Properties.