Bombay HC Dismisses Plea By Seclink Technologies Corporation Challenging Maha Govt's Decision On Dharavi Redevelopment; Contract Stays With Adani Realty

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed a petition by UAE based Seclink Technologies Corporation challenging Maharashtra government’s decision to award Dharavi Redevelopment Project to Adani reality. 

A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar dismissed the petition saying: “For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed.” The detailed judgment copy is awaited. 

The Adani Group had emerged as the highest bidder for the 259-hectare Dharavi Redevelopment Project and bagged it with its Rs 5,069 crore bid in the 2022 tender process.

UAE-based company Seclink Technologies Corporation, which had emerged as the highest bidder in the earlier tender with a Rs7,200 crore bid, had challenged the government’s move of cancelling the old tender and issuing a fresh one with new conditions. 

In February this year, the government had filed an affidavit saying that the tender was cancelled and a fresh tender was issued in 2022 because of several factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia-Ukraine war which affected the financial and economic state of affairs. State had claimed that the financial and economic state of affairs in 2019 and in 2022 were “materially” different. 

The government also stated that the allegations that it acted arbitrarily to favour the selected bidder (Adani) are “vague and ambiguous”. It further said that the old tender and the new one were different and could not be compared. 

The government affidavit reads, “The present economic state of affairs is materially affected by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia-Ukraine war, uncertainty over Rupee-USD rate, interest rate volatility and overall high-risk perception of common investors.” Hence, the “bonafide decision after obtaining legal advice… in public interest”.

It further contended that no contract was signed between the government and Seclink and, hence, the company has no legal right. It also said that the bids were to be submitted afresh and the petitioner could have taken part as there was no question of excluding anyone’s participation.