The Competition Commission of India (CCI) on March 17 dismissed a complaint alleging anti-competitive conduct by ride-hailing platform Rapido.

The CCI held that the allegations pertain to regulatory violations under transport law and do not raise competition concerns over which the CCI can exercise jurisdiction.

Hence, the quorum comprising Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag rejected the complaint at the threshold.

The complaint against Rapido was filed by Vedansh Pandey, director of a rival aggregator platform ‘Anything Legit’, alleging that Rapido was facilitating bike taxi services using private vehicles without permits, commercial insurance or regulatory compliance in Uttarakhand.

According to the informant, a covert audit conducted in July 2025 in Dehradun, Rishikesh and Tapovan revealed that Rapido-enabled rides were being carried out using privately registered two-wheelers (white number plates), allegedly in violation of transport laws. It was further claimed that such practices allowed Rapido to undercut fares by 15–30%, resulting in loss of business, a ₹10 lakh financial hit and a sharp decline in drivers strength on the complainant’s platform.

Pandey also alleged violations of Sections 3 (anti-competitive agreements) and 4 (abuse of dominance) of the Competition Act, including denial of market access and predatory pricing. It sought a pan-India investigation, interim restrictions on Rapido’s operations, and compliance monitoring.

However, the CCI rejected these contentions at the threshold.

The Commission observed that the crux of the allegation was the use of private vehicles without permits, which falls squarely within the domain of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a special legislation governing such issues.

It further held that the information placed on record did not disclose any competition law concerns or evidence of anti-competitive agreements or abuse of dominance under Sections 3 or 4 of the Act.

“In view of the nature of allegations… the Commission is of the view that no prima facie case of contravention… has been made out,” the order stated.

Accordingly, the CCI closed the case.

It also clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations under other legal frameworks and left it open to the informant to pursue remedies under appropriate laws.

[Read Order]