New Delhi – The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed allegations of anti-competitive practices concerning a significant solar power tender issued by the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI). The ruling provides relief to major players, including the Adani Group and Azure Power, who were accused of violating competition norms.
No Dominance Found for Adani Group
In its order, the fair trade regulator found no prima facie evidence of wrongdoing by Adani Enterprises Ltd, Adani Green Energy, Azure Power India Pvt Ltd, or several state utilities. The complaint had also named industrialist Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani. The CCI specifically noted that the Adani Group does not appear to hold a dominant position in India's power generation market, which is characterized by the presence of multiple large public and private players.
The Commission cited companies such as NTPC Limited, Power Grid Corporation of India, Tata Power, Torrent Power, and Reliance Power to illustrate the competitive landscape, stating, “The Adani Group, prima facie, does not seem to be a dominant player in the power generation market in India.”
Tender Design and Other Allegations Dismissed
The complaint had raised concerns over specific clauses in the Request for Selection (RfS) documents, including a “Green Shoe Option” and tariff revisions, arguing that these created entry barriers and disadvantaged smaller firms. However, the CCI determined that these allegations lacked substantive evidence.
Furthermore, claims of cross-subsidisation, exclusionary conduct, and even allegations of bribery linked to power sale and purchase agreements were also dismissed. The regulator concluded that such conduct did not meet the threshold for abusive practices under Section 4 of the Competition Act. Regarding the tender design, the CCI found no proof that the RfS documents were structured to favor large players, emphasizing that tender conditions are typically customized to the specific requirements of the procuring entity.
Ultimately, the Commission found no prima facie violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, which address anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position, respectively. Consequently, the case was ordered to be closed under Section 26(2) of the Act.