Bombay High Court rules that the fresh tender for the Dharavi redevelopment project was not specifically designed for Adani.

The Bombay High Court, on Friday, dismissed Seclink Technologies’ petition challenging the Maharashtra government’s decision to cancel its successful bid for the redevelopment of Dharavi slums and issue a new tender in 2022. The fresh tender ultimately awarded the project to Adani Properties. Seclink had claimed that the tender process was tailored to favor Adani, but the Court disagreed, ruling that the conditions were not designed to benefit a single bidder.
The case revolves around the Maharashtra government’s decision to annul Seclink’s ₹7,200-crore bid for the project, which had been the highest offer in 2019, and to introduce a new bidding process in 2022. In the 2022 tender, Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. won with a ₹5,069-crore bid. Seclink had argued that the inclusion of 45 acres of railway land in the revised plan, not part of the original proposal, had already been factored into its 2019 bid and that the government’s decision to cancel the original bid was unfair and aimed at benefiting Adani. Seclink also claimed it suffered a financial loss of ₹8,424 crore due to the cancellation.
The Maharashtra government, however, defended its decision, explaining that significant changes in the economic environment between 2019 and 2022—such as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine war, fluctuations in the exchange rate, and changes in interest rates—necessitated the revision of the tender terms. The government argued that the revised tender was designed to account for these changes.
In its ruling, the Court held that the inclusion of railway land in the redevelopment project was not only justified but also necessary, as the land had not been part of the original plan when Seclink’s bid was made. The Court pointed out that the MoU between the Rail Land Development Authority (RLDA) and the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) was signed only after the original tender had been floated and bids submitted. Therefore, Seclink was aware that railway land had not been included in the 2019 bid process.
The Court further clarified that Seclink had no “vested right” to the contract based solely on the 2019 declaration that it was the highest bidder. The Court ruled that the declaration was not a binding contract, and no rights had vested in Seclink. The Court emphasized that merely because Seclink incurred costs during the bidding process did not invalidate the government’s decision to cancel the original tender.
Additionally, the Court noted that Seclink could not challenge the new tender process because it had opted not to participate in the fresh bidding or the pre-bid meeting, establishing that a party that does not engage in the process cannot later contest its terms.
The ruling affirmed the legal principle that participation in a tender process is a prerequisite to challenging its terms and that the Maharashtra government’s decision to cancel Seclink’s bid and issue a new tender was not unjustified. Senior Advocates Virendra Tulzapurkar, Milind Sathe, and Ravindra Kadam, along with other legal representatives, appeared for Seclink, the State, and Adani in the case.