A key finding of the Commission was that the Adani Group does not hold a "dominant" position in the relevant market.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Thursday dismissed allegations of bid rigging and abuse of dominance against Adani Group entities in large-scale solar power project allocations.
In its order, the CCI said it found “no prima facie case of contravention” of competition law and closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, which allows dismissal at the preliminary stage without ordering an investigation.
The case was filed by an individual complainant alleging anti-competitive conduct, including bid rigging, abuse of dominance, and collusion in the award of solar power projects under a manufacturing-linked tender issued by the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI).
A key finding of the Commission was that the Adani Group does not hold a dominant position in the relevant market, a necessary condition to establish abuse under Section 4 of the Act.
It noted that the complainant had failed to delineate a relevant market or justify treating solar or renewable energy as a distinct segment.
The Commission observed that power generation in India spans multiple sources — coal, solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear — and includes several public and private sector players.
“The Adani Group, prima facie, does not seem to be a dominant player in the power generation market in India,”
it said.
It added that the market includes “many significant players” such as NTPC, Power Grid Corporation of India, Tata Power, Torrent Power, and Reliance Power, as well as JSW Energy and Suzlon Energy.
On allegations of abuse of dominance, the CCI said there was no material to establish either dominance or its abuse.
“There is no clear evidence on record which may establish dominant position or its abuse,”
the Commission said.
It also rejected claims that economies of scale or group-level synergies amounted to anti-competitive conduct, noting that such factors alone do not establish dominance.
Further, allegations relating to bribery were held to fall outside the scope of abuse under Section 4.
Addressing concerns around the tender structure, including claims of favouring large players and “cover bidding”, the Commission said these did not raise competition issues.
It noted that no evidence was provided to show that one bidder acted as a proxy for another or that the process was manipulated.
“The Informant has not been able to furnish any evidence,”
the order said.
The Commission emphasised that tender conditions fall within the procurer’s domain and cannot be deemed anti-competitive merely because they favour certain participants.
It observed that “tender design is made according to specific requirements of the procurer” and that standard eligibility and capacity criteria cannot be faulted under competition law.
The Commission said the complainant had not substantiated allegations of anti-competitive agreements under Section 3 of the Act, which deals with agreements that cause or are likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition.
It found no material indicating any such agreement or coordinated conduct.
On Section 4, which deals with abuse of dominance, the Commission reiterated that neither dominance nor its abuse had been established.
Concluding the matter, the CCI said:
“There is no prima-facie case of contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act warranting an investigation into the matter.”
Source: Business Standard
