CCI junks separate cases against Jio and DIAL for alleged violations of antitrust rules

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Thursday dismissed a complaint against Reliance Jio Infocomm and over 4,500 entities, finding no prima facie case of cartelisation or abuse of market dominance by them.

The complaint had covered firms operating in logistics, telecom, government e-marketplace procurement, energy, steel, cement, FMCG, healthcare, real estate and other sectors.

In a separate case, the CCI also dismissed allegations of violation of competition rules in the tendering process followed by Delhi International Airport (DIAL) for providing security services at the Indira Gandhi International Airport.


The charges by complainant Swam Kartik Sharma, director of M/s Galaxy Security and Allied Services, remained unsubstantiated, the CCI noted, while closing the case.

Jio case

In an order, the CCI underscored the absence of any cogent material, documentary evidence, empirical data or other contemporaneous material that could prima facie substantiate the allegations raised by the complainant individual.

In such a case, the regulator’s jurisdiction can’t be invoked, as “it would effectively require the Commission to embark upon a roving and fishing inquiry”, the order said.

Complainant Goutam Mohanta claimed that telecom operators in the highly-concentrated eastern and north-eastern regions exhibited similar tariff structures, including commonly adopted 28 day and 84 day recharge periods, and uniform data policy features. This warrants an examination under the competition law, he claimed.

However, the regulator noted that the allegations made are solely based on “comparative assessment of publicly available recharge plans and do not disclose any evidence regarding coordinated action and meeting of minds” amongst the opposite parties.

The complainant also alleged that entities in the logistics sector have engaged in coordinated conduct, including price alignment, route allocation and exclusionary arrangements. This, he claimed, restricted free and fair competition in the areas of freight movement, port evacuation, industrial distribution corridors and supply-chain logistics.

The regulator, however, found no substantiation by the complainant of the allegations though relevant data and facts.

Case against AAI, DIAL closed

The Commission noted that the complainant has placed nothing on record to indicate bid rigging or collusive bidding to cause appreciable adverse effect on competition.

The Airports Authority of India (AAI), the civil aviation ministry and DIAL were made opposite parties in this case.

“Having perused the allegations and the relief sought by the informant, the Commission is of the view that there appears to be nothing on record to establish contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and/or 4 of the Competition Act in the present case,” the regulator said, while closing the case.

Section 3 of the competition law essentially discourages actions that cause appreciable adverse effect on competition, while section 4 bars the abuse of dominant market position by an enterprise, among others.