During the hearing on the redevelopment of the Dharavi Slums Redevelopment Project, the Supreme Court appreciated the exemplary wisdom and understanding shown by the Dharavi slum residents and the corporation officers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

While hearing a plea filed by SecLink Technologies challenging the Bombay High Court decision cancelling the tender award to SecLink and upholding the tender awarded to Adani Properties for the slum redevelopment, Justice PB Varale orally praised the courage shown by the residents by maintaining social distancing in an area where population density is so high per square.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Varale was hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta(for the State of Maharashtra) on SecLink's challenge to the Maharashtra Government's decision to cancel the tender in favour of SecLink. Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium appeared for the petitioner.

Mehta made a reference to why the earlier tender was cancelled and how the reissued tender enlarged the scope on many aspects. He made a reference to how things couldn't proceed as they should have during the pandemic.

On this, Justice Varale said: "Since reference is made to the COVID-19 pandemic, I must appreciate all those Dharavi residents for their extraordinary understanding and wisdom shown in those pandemic periods when it was very difficult to provide medical assistance to such a large area, but for their joint efforts and understanding shown by them and extraordinary efforts. Corporation officers could fight COVID, and they stood as an example for the rest of Bombay. So many corporation officers lost their lives in that battle. That must be appreciated. Otherwise figures would have been lacs."

He stated that the residents stood by the corporation officers and voluntarily assisted the officers.

Agreeing to this, SG Mehta said : "In Dharavi area, one house would have 10-15 people and imagine the situation in a lockdown area. They were staying there. Lanes are so narrow that social distancing is a remote dream but only because of the self-imposed discipline of the people and selfless service of the corporation people."

Hearing this, Justice Sundresh agreed that they had shown a mature response and stated that sometimes factors like poverty force you to learn and adjust in such situations.

"Sometimes, poverty and lack of amenities will make you broad-minded. It will happen to joint families also. If you are in a joint family, if you live with people, you know how to adjust and how to deal with problems. Sacrifice gets created in the character. They are in a better position to deal with the problem."

In this case, the petitioner company, incorporated in the Seychelles, was the highest bidder in the first tender process. In the financial bids of the first tender, SecLink quoted a bid price of Rs.7200 crores, whereas Adani Properties quoted Rs.4529 crores.

SecLink challenged the decision taken by the Committee of Secretaries (CoS) of the Government of Maharashtra (GoM) on 27 August 2020, where the tender process initiated on 28 November 2018 for redevelopment of Dharavi area was cancelled.

The CoS made a decision to take recourse to the process of re-tendering for the project so as to include 45 acres of railway land in the redevelopment project. The Government Resolution dated 5 November 2020 issued by Housing Department of GoM, opened fresh tender with modified terms and conditions.

In the fresh tender process, Adani Properties was awarded the tender with a price bid of Rs.5069 crores. SecLink argued that the fresh tender was issued with a view to defeat it and other prospective bidders' rights and to favour a particular bidder. It contended that the fresh tender was tailor-made to suit a particular tenderer.

It was challenged before the Bombay High Court, which opined that the reasons given by the CoS for cancelling the earlier tender process was justified. It observed that the CoS discussed that the inclusion of railway land makes the project more viable and that such inclusion was in public interest. It stated that the fresh tender was issued keeping such inclusion in mind.

Case Details: SECLINK TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA|SLP(C) No. 6090/2025