HC Upholds Tender Awarded to Adani Group to Redevelop Dharavi Slum Sprawl

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Friday upheld the tender awarded to Adani Properties Private Limited by the Maharashtra government for the Dharavi slum redevelopment project in Mumbai.

A division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar dismissed a petition filed by UAE-based Seclink Technologies Corporation challenging the state government’s decision to award the project to Adani Properties Private Ltd.

The bench said the petition lacks “force and effort” and hence stands dismissed.

The Adani Group had emerged as the highest bidder for the 259-hectare Dharavi Redevelopment Project and bagged it with its Rs 5,069-crore offer in the 2022 tender process.

In the first tender issued in 2018, the petitioner company had emerged as the highest bidder with its Rs 7,200-crore offer.

The government had, however, cancelled the 2018 tender and issued a fresh tender in 2022 with additional conditions.

Seclink Technologies Corporation first challenged the cancellation of the 2018 tender and subsequently the 2022 tender award to Adani.

“The grounds raised in the petition lack force and effort. The challenge to the government’s action of cancelling the earlier tender and issuing a fresh tender award fails,” the high court said.

The state government had submitted to the HC that the tender award was transparent and no undue favour was shown to the highest bidder Adani Group.

The government had said that the 2018 tender was cancelled and a fresh tender was issued in 2022 because of several factors like the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war which affected the financial and economic state of affairs.

The first tender for the redevelopment project was issued in November 2018. In March 2019, the bids were opened and it was found that the petitioner company was the highest bidder.

The same month, an additional 45 acres of land was made available to the government by the Indian Railways for the redevelopment project, as per the state government.

The government claimed that there was “no formation of contract” between the government and the petitioner company and hence it has no legal right in the matter.

In November 2020, a government resolution was issued cancelling the first tender claiming that there was a material change in the tender condition after “Bid Due Date”.

The government further claimed that in the new tender, the bids were to be submitted afresh and the petitioner could have submitted a fresh bid complying with its terms and conditions.