The competition commission of India (CCI) has closed a case alleging bid rigging and abuse of dominance against Adani Enterprises Ltd, Adani Green Energy Ltd and other entities, finding no prima facie evidence of violation of competition law in the award of large-scale solar power projects.
The order was passed by a bench comprising CCI chairperson Ravneet Kaur and members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag in a complaint filed by Ravi Sharma. "With regard to the clause-specific allegations made by the informant, the Commission observes that the informant 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. It is noted that tender design is made according to specific requirements of the procurer. As stated by Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI), the tender was floated thrice with an intent to attract participation according to the prevailing incentive scheme at the time. Further, the informant has not been able to demonstrate how any clause of the RfS referred to in the information or chain of events described therein is in contravention of the provisions of the Competition Act."
Mr Sharma, the informant, had alleged that a 2019 tender floated by SECI for 7GW (gigawatts) solar power projects linked to manufacturing capacity was structured to favour large players such as Adani group entities and Azure Power India Pvt Ltd.
According to the complaint, certain provisions in the tender, including the 'green shoe option' and transfer of unallocated capacity, effectively excluded smaller players and enabled consolidation of project capacity in favour of large corporations.
It was further alleged that the capacity initially awarded to Azure Power was subsequently transferred to Adani Green Energy, indicating a pre-arranged outcome.
The informant also raised allegations of bribery, citing a US indictment, and claimed that contracts were structured to benefit Adani group companies.
The commission, however, found the allegations to be unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence.
It observed that the informant failed to establish any material showing that Azure Power acted as a proxy bidder or that the bidding process was manipulated.
“Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances… there is no prima facie case of contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act warranting an investigation,” the CCI said in its order, closing the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act.
On the issue of abuse of dominance, the commission held that the Adani group does not appear to be a dominant player in the relevant market.
It noted that India’s power generation sector comprises multiple significant public and private players, including NTPC Ltd, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, Tata Power Ltd, Torrent Power Ltd and Reliance Power Ltd.
CCI also noted that even within the renewable energy segment, several competing players such as JSW Energy Ltd and Suzlon Energy Ltd operate in the market.
It further observed that Mr Sharma had failed to properly define the relevant market or demonstrate how Adani group held a dominant position.
The commission emphasised that stipulating capacity and financial eligibility criteria is a standard industry practice and cannot be deemed anti-competitive merely because smaller players may find it difficult to qualify.
It also rejected claims that advantages such as economies of scale or access to capital constituted abuse of dominance, noting that no exclusionary conduct had been demonstrated.
On allegations of bribery and corruption, the commission clarified that such issues, even if assumed, do not fall within the ambit of abuse of dominance under competition law.
Finding no contravention of Sections 3 (anti-competitive agreements) or 4 (abuse of dominant position) of the Competition Act, CCI ordered closure of the case at the preliminary stage.
