The Supreme Court on Friday sought responses from the Maharashtra government and Adani Properties on a petition filed by UAE-based Seclink Technologies. The company is challenging the state’s decision to cancel its 2019 bid for Dharavi’s redevelopment and issue a fresh tender in 2022, which was awarded to Adani.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar considered Seclink’s plea after the company expressed willingness to increase its initial ₹7,200 crore bid by 20%. The Court has directed Seclink to submit an affidavit confirming this commitment and scheduled the next hearing for May 25.
“Now a statement is made that they shall shell out a higher amount than the biggest bidder. All other conditions which the highest bidder has agreed which means ₹1,000 crore towards lease and ₹2,800 crore toward the indemnity amount. Petitioner shall also fulfill all other obligations. Let fresh affidavit be filed,” the order stated.
Previously, on December 20, 2024, the Bombay High Court upheld the state’s decision to cancel Seclink’s bid and proceed with a fresh tender in 2022, favoring Adani. Seclink then approached the Supreme Court.
In court, Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram represented Seclink, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Maharashtra government, and Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued on behalf of Adani.
During the hearing, Rohatgi contended that Adani had already invested in equipment worth hundreds of crores for the project. In response, the Court directed the company to maintain an escrow account for all payments. However, it declined an oral request to halt ongoing work.
Seclink’s legal challenge stems from the state’s decision to annul its 2019 winning bid of ₹7,200 crore, which had outbid Adani’s ₹4,539 crore offer. In 2022, the Maharashtra government revised the project scope, incorporating 45 acres of railway land to aid slum rehabilitation. Since this land was not part of the original tender, the state scrapped the previous bid and initiated a fresh auction.
Defending its move, the Maharashtra government asserted that the decision was based on changing economic conditions rather than favoritism. It cited significant global and domestic financial shifts between 2019 and 2022—including the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine war, currency fluctuations, rising interest rates, and an increasingly risky investment climate—as factors that necessitated reevaluating the project’s financial terms.
The government maintains that the revised bidding process was essential to align with current market realities and safeguard public interest.
