Dharavi project retendering was in public interest: SRA

Mumbai: The Maharashtra housing department in its response to the petition filed by Dubai based firm Seclink Technology Corporation (STC) challenging the fresh tender issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) for the Dharavi redevelopment project has stated that the process was done in public interest and the firm could not claim any vested right after the project was awarded to the Adani Group

Mumbai: The Maharashtra housing department in its response to the petition filed by Dubai based firm Seclink Technology Corporation (STC) challenging the fresh tender issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) for the Dharavi redevelopment project has stated that the process was done in public interest and the firm could not claim any vested right after the project was awarded to the Adani Group.

HT Image

The affidavit filed by Sunil Tumbare, deputy secretary, the housing department has stated that though the Dubai-based Seclink Technology Corporation (STC) had the highest bid in the tender issued in 2018, as 45 acres of railway land had become available after the tender was issued, the department had cancelled the bid after consultation with the advocate general.

The affidavit further states that though STC was found to be the highest bidder and the same was communicated to it, no contract had been entered into for the project between the firm and the state government. In light of this, the fresh tender issued by the chief minister Eknath Shinde led cabinet on October 1, 2022, could not be challenged.

With regards to the allegation of the firm that the tender specifications were changed to oust it from the bidding process, the affidavit states that “The petitioner has no vested right to get an award in a tender process. Any person who submits a bid can only legitimately expect that his bid is considered in a non-arbitrary and transparent manner. No person has a right to do business with the government as a matter of right.”

Referring to the vague allegations of tender specifications being changed to favour certain bidders, the affidavit states, “Petitioner could have complied with the tender condition of the tender notice dated October 2022 and participated in the same. The Petitioner did not attend the pre-bid meeting and did not make any suggestions by any other mode of communication. Thus, the Petitioner has chosen not to participate in the tendering process and instead has made vague allegations.”

The affidavit adds by saying that “the tendering authority is the sole judge/decision-maker for formulating its requirements in the tender document. The Petitioner cannot force the tendering authority to invite Tenders in such a way that he would be able to participate. In any case, the allegation that the new Tender conditions are designed to exclude the Petitioner’s participation is completely unfounded.”

The housing department concludes, “It is submitted that in the instant case, the tendering process has been fair, transparent and in the larger public interest. The tender conditions are formulated by the experts taking into consideration the overall public interest and the nature of the project.”

In light of this, the affidavit has sought the dismissal of the petition with costs. The HC will hear the petition on March 14.