The Bombay High Court, in its decision pronounced on December 20, 2024, dismissed the writ petition filed by SecLink Technologies Corporation against the State of Maharashtra and Others in SecLink Technologies Corporation v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 4823 of 2022). The petitioner, a consortium led by a UAE-based entity, sought to challenge the cancellation of its successful bid in 2019 for the Dharavi Redevelopment Project and the subsequent issuance of a fresh tender in 2022, which resulted in the award of the contract to Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar.

The genesis of the dispute traces back to a tender issued in 2018 for the redevelopment of Dharavi, a densely populated slum area in Mumbai. SecLink emerged as the highest bidder in 2019, submitting a bid of ₹7,200 crore, which surpassed Adani's bid of ₹4,539 crore. However, following significant modifications to the project scope, particularly the inclusion of 45 acres of railway land, the Committee of Secretaries (CoS) recommended, and the Cabinet approved, the cancellation of the earlier tender in 2020. A fresh tender was subsequently floated in 2022, culminating in the selection of Adani Infrastructure with a revised bid of ₹5,069 crore.

The petitioner contended that the inclusion of railway land in the redevelopment project had already been contemplated in its initial bid and that the fresh tender process was orchestrated to exclude it from competition and favor Adani Group. SecLink alleged that the cancellation of the earlier tender resulted in financial losses amounting to ₹8,424 crore and argued that the tender conditions under the new process were discriminatory.

SecLink's challenge to the cancellation of the 2019 tender and the subsequent tender process was predicated on the following key grounds:

1. Arbitrariness in the Decision to Cancel: It was contended that the cancellation of the earlier tender process was "arbitrary, irrational, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India." The petitioner argued that there was no justification for canceling the 2019 tender, and the reasons cited by the CoS were not borne out by the record.
2. Delay in Cancellation: The petitioner averred that the cancellation occurred after an unreasonable delay, which caused it to incur significant financial losses in preparation for the project.
3. Existence of Concluded Contract: SecLink argued that the letter issued by the Dharavi Redevelopment Project/Special Planning Authority (DRP/SPA) on March 8, 2019, declaring it the highest bidder, constituted a concluded contract, rendering the subsequent cancellation impermissible.

The High Court, after a meticulous examination of the record and pleadings, dismissed SecLink's petition. The Bench observed that the petitioner failed to establish arbitrariness or illegality in the cancellation of the earlier tender or the issuance of the fresh tender. The Court further held that the letter of March 8, 2019, did not confer any vested rights upon the petitioner.

The Bench opined that the decision to cancel the earlier tender process was necessitated by the inclusion of railway land and substantial changes in the project’s scope, which materially altered the financial and logistical dynamics of the redevelopment. The Court stated, "The decision to include railway land in the Dharavi Redevelopment Project was a material change, necessitating a fresh tender process to ensure transparency and competitiveness." It further held that the State was within its rights to modify the terms of the tender to align with the public interest.

Rejecting the petitioner’s contention regarding the existence of a concluded contract, the Court stated, "Merely being declared the highest bidder does not vest any enforceable right in the petitioner. The letter of March 8, 2019, cannot be construed as a Letter of Award or a binding contract." The Bench relied on well-settled principles of tender jurisprudence, which require the issuance of a formal Letter of Award or execution of an agreement to create contractual obligations.

On the issue of delay, the Court held that the petitioner's claim of financial loss could not invalidate the State's decision to cancel the tender. It noted, "Financial loss or expenditure incurred by the petitioner does not render the decision to annul the tender process arbitrary or illegal."

Addressing the petitioner’s argument that the fresh tender conditions were tailored to favor Adani Group, the Court emphasized the competitive nature of the new bidding process. It observed, "Three bidders participated in the fresh tender, out of which two were found to be technically qualified. The presence of multiple qualified bidders negates the petitioner’s claim that the tender conditions were designed to benefit a specific entity."

The Court concluded by stating, "Inclusion of railway land and subsequent modifications to the tender terms were actions taken in public interest and cannot be characterized as arbitrary or capricious."

The petitioner, SecLink Technologies Corporation, was represented by Senior Advocate Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, along with Advocates Mandar Soman, Suraj Iyer, Devendra Ailawadi, Jenil Shah, Abhishek Karnik, and others, instructed by Ganesh & Co. The State of Maharashtra and the Dharavi Redevelopment Project Authority (DRP/SPA) were represented by Senior Advocate Dr. Milind Sathe, Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan, AGP Atul Vanarse, and Advocates Bhushan Deshmukh and Aditya Mhase. Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. was represented by Senior Advocate Ravindra Kadam, Senior Advocates Vikram Nankani and Zal Andhyarujina, and Advocates Rohan Kadam, Karan Bhide, Rati Patni, Kathleen Lobo, Vikrant Dere, instructed by Wadia Ghandy & Co.

Case Title: SecLink Technologies Corporation v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 4823 of 2022
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar