Two writ petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the contract awarded to the Singapore-based firm, ATD; the first by Save Bombay Committee, the second by Bharat Oceanic Recoveries Ltd (BORL), an Indian concern of the Australian company.

The petitioners argued that the state government did not invite tenders before giving the contract to ATD, and thereby denying a fair chance to other concerns interested in the project of building the oceanarium in place of the present Taraporewala Aquarium.

Counsel for BORL, Colin Gonsalves argued that state government had not even acknowledged the repeated offers sent by BORL since 1995. ``Even today our company is ready to present a much better, and financially moreviable offer than the Singapore-based firm,'' he said adding that the Australian firm will return the oceanarium to the government in 15 years unlike ATD which claimed to return it in 50 years.

Gonsalves stated that BORL proposes to give Rs 75 lakh per year as the revenue share to the government against of Rs 50 lakh; build sufficient two and half floors against ATD's six-storeys and a lower gate fee than Rs 140 per person proposed by ATD.

While Gonsalves presented the contents of the alternative proposal, counsels representing the state government and ATD raised doubts about the financial viability of the Australian firm. They said that according to their information the Australian firm is in dire straits and has a share capital of only two dollars.

Advocate General C J Sawant said BORL should present a definite proposal along with the names of the banks which are ready to provide guarantees. ``If such a concrete proposal is given to the court, the state government has no objection in considering it,''he added.

Gulam Vahanavati, ATD counsel, said if the Australian firm presents such a lucrative proposal, then he will advise his client to give up the oceanarium project and concentrate on 11 projects in other countries.