When India’s most ambitious urban renewal project — the ₹20,000-crore Dharavi Redevelopment — finally moved from blueprint to bulldozer, few expected the courtroom twist that followed.
Now, a petition filed by Dubai-based SecLink Technologies Corporation has landed before the Supreme Court, accusing the Maharashtra government of changing the rules mid-game after the company had already emerged as the highest bidder for the project back in 2019. The matter is now listed for hearing in the Supreme Court for October 13, 2025..
Earlier, a bench led by former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna refused to halt the ongoing project led by the Adani Group but agreed to examine SecLink’s plea. The Court issued notices to the Maharashtra government and Adani Properties Pvt. Ltd., seeking their responses. While the project continues on the ground, the documents placed before the Supreme Court open a rare window into a billion-dollar contest that has been brewing since 2018.
The Background: A Global Bid That Was Shelved
According to the petition, the Government of Maharashtra first floated Tender No. DRP/1/2018 on 28 November 2018 for redevelopment of the Dharavi Notified Area — one of Asia’s largest slums. The tender attracted international participation, including SecLink, which claimed to have backing from Gulf-based investors.
By January 2019, the evaluation committee had confirmed SecLink as technically qualified, and on 30 January 2019, the financial bids were opened — revealing SecLink’s offer of ₹7,200 crore, substantially higher than Adani Properties Pvt. Ltd.’s ₹4,529 crore bid.
Minutes of the Committee of Secretaries meeting on 1 February 2019 confirmed SecLink as the highest bidder, and official communication dated 8 March 2019 from the Dharavi Redevelopment Authority reiterated this conclusion.
The Sudden Cancellation
What followed, the petition says, was an unexplained pause. For months, the state delayed issuing a Letter of Award. Then, on 27 August 2020, the Committee of Secretaries abruptly cancelled the tender without assigning reasons, a decision later ratified by the Cabinet on 29 October 2020 and formalized through a Government Resolution dated 5 November 2020.
The petitioner claims that the government cited the need to include additional railway land as justification for the new tender — even though, according to the documents, no such acquisition had been completed at that time.
A New Tender, New Rules
Two years later, the state issued a fresh tender (Ref. No. DRP/2/2022) with altered eligibility and financial terms. The petition contends these new conditions “disproportionately benefited” Adani Properties Pvt. Ltd. by modifying land use, bid qualification norms, and development rights in ways that “excluded” SecLink.
The company also argues that the 2022 framework “relaxed key financial obligations and altered the treatment of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs)” from the earlier version, allegedly upsetting the level playing field among bidders.
Bombay High Court’s Verdict and the Appeal
SecLink challenged the cancellation before the Bombay High Court (Writ Petition No. 4823 of 2022), arguing that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution by being arbitrary and opaque.
On 20 December 2024, the High Court dismissed the plea, accepting the government’s reasoning that the inclusion of railway land justified the tender’s reissue. That order is now under appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Interim Order: No Stay, But Scrutiny
At the Supreme Court hearing on 7 March 2025, the bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar took note of two main issues:
1) Whether the cancellation of the first tender was justified, and
2) Whether the second tender’s modified terms unfairly excluded SecLink.
The Court observed that while it was prima facie satisfied with the High Court’s finding on cancellation, the second issue warranted closer scrutiny.
Importantly, the bench recorded that SecLink offered to raise its bid to ₹8,640 crore, significantly higher than Adani’s ₹5,069-crore offer, and undertook to meet all other obligations associated with the project.
In light of ongoing construction, the Court declined to stay the project but issued notice to the State and Adani, directing that all project-related payments be made “only through one bank account” and that proper records, invoices, and disclosures be maintained.
The Court also directed production of the original project files at the next hearing and clarified that “no special equities” — meaning no irreversible advantage — would accrue to any party while the matter remains pending.
What’s Next
The Dharavi redevelopment — which aims to transform a 600-acre sprawl housing nearly one million residents — is now under the Supreme Court’s lens. For now, Adani’s project continues, but every payment, demolition, and design approval happens under judicial watch. For the petitioning company, the stakes are high — not just for a lost contract, but for what it calls "the integrity of India’s global bidding process."
Citations: (All from “Dharavi Supreme Court Petition Order”, 2025):
- Tender No. DRP/1/2018 and ₹7,200 crore bid details – pp. 284–313
- Committee of Secretaries confirmation – p. 314–322
- Cancellation of tender and Cabinet resolution – pp. 330–342
- 2022 retender and new eligibility terms – pp. 467–656
- Bombay High Court judgment dated 20.12.2024 – pp. 1–24
- Supreme Court order dated 07.03.2025 – pp. 2–3
- SecLink’s revised ₹8,640 crore offer – p. 3
- Directions for single bank account and production of files – p. 3
Part 2 of the story will unpack the "Heart of the Dispute" |
