- Competition Watchdog finds no prima facie violation under Sections 3 & 4 of Competition Act
- Power market ‘not dominated’ by Adani Group amid presence of multiple major players
- Allegations of tender bias, entry barriers & cross-subsidisation lack evidence: Regulator
- Case closed forthwith as CCI rejects claims over SECI Solar bidding framework
NE LAW & BUSINESS BUREAU
NEW DELHI, APR 17
In a significant ruling for India’s renewable energy and competition landscape, the Competition Commission of India has dismissed a complaint alleging anti-competitive conduct in a solar power tender floated by the Solar Energy Corporation of India, effectively clearing entities of the Adani Group and Azure Power of wrongdoing.
The complaint had named multiple entities, including Adani Enterprises Ltd, Adani Green Energy Four Ltd, Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and Azure Power India Pvt Ltd, along with SECI and several state utilities, alleging violations of competition norms in solar tender processes.
Rejecting the allegations, the CCI underscored the competitive nature of India’s power generation sector, noting the presence of several large public and private players such as NTPC Limited, Power Grid Corporation of India, Tata Power, Torrent Power, and Reliance Power.
“As such and in view of the fact that power generation market in India is comprised of many significant players viz. National Thermal Power Corporation, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Tata Power Co. Ltd., Torrent Power and Reliance Power etc., the Adani Group, prima facie, does not seem to be a dominant player in the power generation market in India,” the CCI said in the order.
The regulator further observed that key allegations—ranging from cross-subsidisation and exclusionary practices to entry barriers—were not backed by credible evidence.
The complainant had also raised concerns over specific clauses such as the “Green Shoe Option,” tariff revisions, and other tender conditions, alleging these discouraged participation from smaller players.
However, the watchdog rejected these claims, stating that “the complainant has not provided any cogent evidence of the request for selection (RfS) documents being designed in a manner that encourages participation of only big players in the market.”
Addressing serious allegations of bribery and collusion linked to power sales agreements, the Commission clarified that such conduct “does not seem to qualify as an abusive conduct (exclusionary or exploitative), within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act.”
The order further emphasised that tender frameworks are typically structured based on the specific requirements of the procuring entity, reinforcing SECI’s autonomy in designing bid conditions.
Concluding that there was no prima facie case of contravention under Sections 3 (anti-competitive agreements) and 4 (abuse of dominant position) of the Competition Act, the regulator ruled:
“Therefore, the matter is directed to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act.”
The ruling provides regulatory clarity for India’s fast-expanding solar power sector, even as it reinforces the evidentiary threshold required to establish anti-trust violations in complex infrastructure tenders.
