Bombay High Court dismisses plea by Seclink Technologies Corporation challenging government’s decision on Dharavi redevelopment project; contract to remain with Adani Realty

The Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed a plea by Seclink Technologies Corporation challenging the Maharashtra government’s decision to award the Dharavi redevelopment project to Adani Realty, which was the successful bidder for the project in 2019.

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed a plea by UAE-based Seclink Technologies Corporation challenging the Maharashtra government’s decision to award the Dharavi redevelopment project to Adani Realty.

“For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed,” a bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar said while dismissing the plea. A copy of the detailed judgment is awaited.

The Adani Group had won the project as the highest bidder with a bid of Rs 5,069 crore in the 2022 tender process for the 259-hectare Dharavi redevelopment project.

UAE-based Seclink Technologies Corporation, which had emerged as the highest bidder in an earlier tender in 2019 with a bid of Rs 7,200 crore, had challenged the government’s move to cancel the old tender and issue a fresh tender with new terms.

In February this year, the government filed an affidavit saying that the old tender was canceled and a fresh tender was issued in 2022 due to multiple reasons, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war. The government claimed that the financial and economic conditions of 2019 and 2022 were “materially” different.

The government also said that the petitioner’s allegations, that it acted arbitrarily to benefit Adani, are “unspecific and vague”. The government also pointed out that the old and new tenders were different and could not be compared.

The government affidavit said, “The current economic situation is materially affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia-Ukraine war, rupee-dollar rate uncertainty, interest rate volatility and high-risk perception of ordinary investors.” Hence, it was a “bona fide decision taken in public interest after due legal advice”.

The government also argued that since there was no contract between the government and Seclink, the company had no legal rights. It also said that the new tender had to invite fresh bids and the petitioner could have participated in it as there was no question of excluding anyone.