CCI Clears Adani Firms in Solar Tender Probe, Finds No Antitrust Breach

In the order dated April 16, the fair trade regulator closed the case under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, stating that "Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Commission is of the view that there is no prima-facie case of contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act warranting an investigation into the matter. Therefore, the matter is directed to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act".

The case pertained to allegations that the SECI tender for setting up solar manufacturing-linked power projects was designed to favour certain large players, including Adani Group entities, and that subsequent developments in the allocation of capacities distorted competition.

However, the Commission, in its analysis, held that such allegations were not substantiated with evidence. It observed that "the Informant has not been able to furnish any evidence... that OP-5 (Azure Power India Private Limited) was only a cover bidder for OP-2 (Adani Green Energy Limited)," rejecting claims of collusive bidding.

On the issue of market dominance, the CCI noted that the broader power generation market in India comprises multiple players across sources such as coal, solar, wind and hydro. It stated that "the Adani Group, prima facie, does not seem to be a dominant player in the power generation market in India," highlighting the presence of other significant players like NTPC, Tata Power and JSW Energy.

The regulator further underscored that mere allegations of benefits such as economies of scale or group-level synergies do not establish abuse of dominance. "No cogent evidence has been produced by the Informant in this regard. As such, there is no clear evidence on record which may establish a dominant position or its abuse by OP-2." the order said

Addressing concerns around the design of the tender, the Commission reiterated that framing of tender conditions falls within the prerogative of the procurer. It found that "the Informant has not provided any cogent evidence of the RfS documents being designed in a manner that encourages participation of only big players in the market."

The CCI also dismissed objections related to specific clauses such as the 'Green Shoe Option', noting that such provisions did not restrict competition and were aligned with policy directions.

On allegations of bribery and misconduct cited by the Informant, the Commission held that such claims, even if assumed, "do not seem to qualify as an abusive conduct... within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act."

Concluding that the issues raised did not give rise to competition concerns, the Commission ordered that the matter be closed, bringing relief to Adani Enterprises and Adani Green Energy in the SECI-linked tender case.

- ANI