Recently, the Bombay High Court dismissed a petition filed by Seclink Technologies, a UAE-based company, challenging the Maharashtra government's decision to cancel its 2019 tender for the Dharavi slum redevelopment project and issue a fresh tender in 2022. The Court held that the State’s actions were not arbitrary and emphasised the importance of ensuring the project’s financial viability amidst changing economic circumstances.
In 2019, Seclink Technologies emerged as the highest bidder for the Dharavi redevelopment project with a bid of ₹7,200 crore, surpassing Adani Properties' offer of ₹4,539 crore. However, in 2022, the Maharashtra government, under Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, decided to include 45 acres of railway land for slum rehabilitation, a component not part of the original plan. This prompted the State to seek legal advice, and the then Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni recommended re-tendering to reflect the revised scope. Following this, the government cancelled the 2019 tender and initiated a fresh bidding process, which ultimately awarded the contract to Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Seclink argued that the inclusion of railway land had already been accounted for in the original tender, as their bid map included nearly 90 acres of such land. The company alleged that the cancellation was unjustified and that the new tender process was tailored to favour Adani. They claimed to have suffered financial losses amounting to ₹8,424 crore due to the State’s decision.
Senior Advocate Virendra Tulzapurkar, representing Seclink Technologies, contended that the cancellation of the 2019 tender was unwarranted as the railway land was already incorporated in the original project plan. He argued that the government’s decision lacked a reasonable basis and appeared designed to exclude Seclink in favour of Adani. The petitioner also claimed that the new tender process caused substantial financial losses to the company.
The State government, defending its decision, submitted that the revised tender conditions were necessitated by significant economic changes between 2019 and 2022. It highlighted the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, fluctuations in currency exchange rates, and high-risk investor sentiments as factors that made the original terms untenable. The government asserted that the revised conditions were formulated after careful consideration to ensure the project’s financial feasibility and alignment with the public interest. It refuted claims of arbitrariness, emphasising that the new tender was fair and reasonable given the altered economic landscape.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar, clarified that the actions of the State could not be considered arbitrary or biased toward benefiting any specific party. The Court emphasised that the decision to reissue the tender was a direct result of significant alterations in both the scope of the project and the prevailing economic conditions, which required a fresh assessment of the project's financial viability. In its observation, the Court noted that, due to the inclusion of additional railway land and the changing economic landscape, the government was justified in revisiting and adjusting the terms of the original tender. The Court further emphasised that, in matters of public policy and administration, ensuring procedural fairness and safeguarding public interest are of utmost importance.
The High Court dismissed Seclink Technologies' petition, upholding the Maharashtra government’s decision to cancel the 2019 tender and proceed with the fresh bidding process. The Court concluded that the State’s actions were justified and aligned with the larger public interest.
Picture Source :
