CCI dismisses plea alleging collusion between Reliance Jio and over 4,500 entities

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Thursday dismissed a plea alleging anti-competitive practices by Reliance Jio Infocom Limited and more than 4,500 entities operating across several sectors.

A coram comprising CCI Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag closed the case after finding that the allegations were generic, speculative and unsupported by evidence.

The plea was filed by one Goutam Mohanta against entities operating in telecommunications, logistics, Government e-Marketplace (GeM) procurement, energy, infrastructure, cement, steel, healthcare, pharmaceuticals and real estate, among other sectors.

Mohanta alleged price coordination, market sharing, bid-rigging, exclusionary practices and abuse of dominance in violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act.

In the telecom sector, he claimed that operators in eastern and north-eastern India offered similar tariff structures, commonly used 28-day and 84-day recharge periods and adopted comparable prices and data policies.

However, the CCI found that the allegations were based only on a comparison of publicly available recharge plans. No evidence indicating coordinated action or a meeting of minds among the operators was produced.

“The Commission is of the view that mere existence of parallel or similar pricing in an oligopolistic market cannot by itself be prima facie indicative of prohibited conduct under Section 3 of the Act,” the order said.

The plea also alleged price alignment, route allocation and exclusionary practices in the logistics sector. It claimed that independent operators quoted substantially identical freight rates for transporting commodities such as cement, clinker, fertilisers and coal.

The Commission noted that no freight quotations, invoices, bid documents, rate charts or correspondence had been placed on record. The entities allegedly involved, the relevant routes and the period during which the alleged coordination took place, were also not specified.

The plea further alleged bid-rigging on the GeM platform by pointing to repeated participation by the same vendors, similar prices and the concentration of contracts among a limited number of companies.

However, the CCI found that the companies allegedly involved in bid-rigging had not been identified. There was also no material showing coordination, exchange of information or bid rotation.

The Commission said that the allegations relating to the remaining sectors were similarly broad and unsupported by sector-specific facts.

It observed that none of the companies had been assigned a precise role in any particular anti-competitive act.

The CCI concluded that ordering an investigation on such material would amount to conducting a “roving and fishing inquiry” without foundational facts.

Therefore, it found no prima facie violation of Sections 3 or 4 of the Competition Act and closed the case under Section 26(2).

[Read Order]