CCI closes case against Adani, says it is not a dominant player in power generation market

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Thursday closed a case alleging bid rigging and abuse of dominance by Adani Group entities and others in the award of large-scale solar power projects [Ravi Sharma v. Adani Enterprises].

A coram of Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag declined to order an investigation into information filed by one Ravi Sharma against Adani Enterprises, Adani Green Energy, Azure Power, Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) and others

The informant alleged that SECI’s 2019 tender for 7 GW solar power projects linked to manufacturing capacity was structured to favour large players such as Adani and Azure Power.

According to the informant, the tender conditions - including provisions such as transfer of unallocated capacity and the “Green Shoe Option” - effectively excluded smaller players and enabled consolidation of capacity in favour of Adani entities.

It was also alleged that project capacity originally awarded to Azure Power was subsequently transferred to Adani Green Energy, indicating a pre-arranged outcome.

Citing the US indictment, the informant further claimed that Adani officials allegedly bribed the Indian government to finance lucrative contracts designed to benefit their businesses.

The CCI, however, found these allegations to be unsubstantiated. It held that the informant had failed to produce any evidence showing that Azure Power acted as a proxy bidder or that the bidding process was manipulated.

On the issue of dominance, the Commission noted,

"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."

Even in the renewable energy segment, the Commission observed, several competing players exist and the informant had not properly delineated the relevant market or demonstrated dominance.

The CCI also rejected allegations that group-level advantages such as economies of scale or access to capital amounted to abuse of dominance, holding that no evidence of exclusionary conduct had been placed on record.

The Commission further held that issues such as alleged bribery or corruption, even if assumed, do not fall within the scope of abuse of dominance under competition law.

Finding no contravention of Sections 3 or 4 of the Competition Act, the CCI closed the matter at the threshold.

[Read Order]