Bombay HC Dismisses Seclink’s Plea against Dharavi Redevelopment Tender Awarded to Adani

The Bombay High Court on Friday rejected a petition filed by UAE-based Seclink Technologies challenging the Maharashtra government's decision to scrap its 2019 bid for the Dharavi redevelopment project and initiate a fresh tender in 2022. The decision ultimately led to the project being awarded to Adani Properties.

A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar upheld the government's decision, dismissing Seclink’s plea to reverse the annulment of its ₹7,200 crore winning bid. The fresh bidding process resulted in Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. securing the project.

Seclink had initially outbid Adani in 2019 with a ₹7,200 crore bid compared to Adani’s ₹4,539 crore offer. However, the Eknath Shinde-led government decided to include 45 acres of railway land in the project in 2022 to enhance slum rehabilitation, a factor not accounted for in the original proposal.

Based on legal advice from then Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, the state government canceled the 2019 tender, citing the need to reflect the expanded scope and associated costs in a new bidding process.

Seclink argued that the railway land had already been factored into the original tender as the bid map included nearly 90 acres of railway property. The company alleged that the tender cancellation was unjustified and that the revised terms excluded them to favor Adani. Seclink claimed a financial loss of ₹8,424 crore due to the cancellation.

The Maharashtra government defended its actions, stating that the revised conditions were necessitated by changes in the economic landscape between 2019 and 2022, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine war, fluctuating exchange rates, and rising interest rates. These factors, it said, required adjustments to ensure the project’s financial viability and alignment with public interest.

The court, finding no merit in Seclink’s arguments, ruled in favor of the state, stating that the revised tender process was neither arbitrary nor unfair.