Unmesh Gujarathi
Sprouts News Exclusive
In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has issued a notice in response to a petition filed by SecLink Technologies challenging the Bombay High Court’s decision, which upheld the Maharashtra government’s awarding of the Dharavi Slums Redevelopment Project to Adani Properties.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard the plea and decided to examine the legality of the Maharashtra government’s move to cancel the tender initially granted to SecLink Technologies and subsequently re-award it to Adani Properties.
• The Two Core Issues Raised by SecLink
SecLink Technologies has brought forth two key challenges:
1. Tender Cancellation: The petitioner argues that the tender it originally won was unlawfully canceled due to modifications in the project scope, particularly the inclusion of railway land.
2. New Tender Terms: The petitioner contends that the terms of the fresh tender were deliberately altered to favor Adani Properties, thus preventing SecLink from competing fairly.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court took note of SecLink’s financial offer, which stands at ₹8,640 crores, significantly higher than Adani’s winning bid of ₹5,069 crores. The Court has directed SecLink to submit an affidavit detailing this offer before the next hearing, scheduled for May 25, 2025.
Also Read: Actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui’s Wife in Legal Trouble
• Court’s Observations and Directives
The Supreme Court made several critical observations:
– Escrow Account: The Court emphasized that all payments related to the project must be routed through a single escrow account to ensure financial transparency.
– Adani’s Payment Obligations: Adani Properties, as the current project holder, must make all payments from a single designated bank account, with proper invoicing and billing records maintained.
– Demolition Work & Special Equities: As certain demolition activities have already commenced under the project, the Court ruled that neither party can claim “special equities” based on partial execution of the contract.
Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, appearing for SecLink Technologies, assured the Court that the company is prepared to increase its financial commitment by 20%, bringing the total offer to ₹8,640 crores under the same obligations as set forth in the second tender.
However, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Adani Properties, countered the claim, arguing that SecLink is now legally estopped from challenging the tender conditions, as they had not raised concerns earlier.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Maharashtra government, defended the fresh tender process, highlighting that redevelopment work had already begun, with railway quarters in the project area being demolished.
• The High Court’s Verdict
The Bombay High Court had earlier upheld the Maharashtra government’s decision to award the Dharavi redevelopment project to Adani Properties. In its ruling on December 20, 2024, a division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar found no arbitrariness in the cancellation of the first tender and subsequent reissuance under modified conditions.
Originally, the 2018 tender saw SecLink Technologies emerging as the highest bidder, offering ₹7,200 crores, compared to Adani Properties’ bid of ₹4,529 crores. However, in 2020, the Maharashtra government scrapped this tender process, citing the need to integrate 45 acres of railway land into the project. A fresh tender process was initiated in 2022, ultimately awarding the project to Adani Properties at a bid of ₹5,069 crores.
SecLink Technologies challenged this move, arguing that the fresh tender was designed to exclude them and favor Adani. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed their claim, ruling that the government had acted within its rights by modifying the tender conditions in public interest.
With the Supreme Court now examining the matter, the fate of the Dharavi Slums Redevelopment Project hangs in the balance. If SecLink’s arguments gain traction, the entire bidding process may be scrutinized afresh, potentially leading to delays or even a reversal of the project award.
As the next hearing approaches on May 25, 2025, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court’s stance on whether Maharashtra’s tendering process was truly fair or if it unjustly sidelined a higher bidder.