CCI Dismisses Allegations Against Reliance Jio and 4,500 Entities

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed a complaint alleging anti-competitive practices involving Reliance Jio Infocom Limited and over 4,500 entities across diverse sectors. The decision was rendered by a bench comprising CCI Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag. They concluded that the allegations were speculative, lacked specificity, and were unsupported by concrete evidence.

The complaint, filed by Goutam Mohanta, accused entities across telecommunications, logistics, Government e-Marketplace (GeM) procurement, energy, infrastructure, cement, steel, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and real estate sectors of engaging in price coordination, market sharing, bid-rigging, exclusionary practices, and abuse of dominance, in alleged violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

In the telecommunications sector, Mohanta contended that operators in eastern and north-eastern India engaged in collusion by offering similar tariff structures, such as 28-day and 84-day recharge periods, and adopting comparable pricing and data policies. However, CCI dismissed these claims, noting they were based merely on publicly available recharge plans and lacked evidence of coordinated action or any concerted effort among operators.

The CCI’s order stated, “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.”

Further allegations involved price alignment, route allocation, and exclusionary practices in the logistics sector, where it was claimed that independent operators quoted identical freight rates for transporting commodities such as cement, clinker, fertilizers, and coal. The CCI noted that no freight quotations, invoices, bid documents, rate charts, or correspondence were presented as evidence. Furthermore, the specific entities, routes, and timeframes of the alleged coordination were not detailed.

Regarding the GeM platform, the plea alleged bid-rigging, citing repeated participation of the same vendors, similar pricing, and a concentration of contracts among a few companies. However, the CCI found no identification of the companies involved, nor any material evidence of coordination, information exchange, or bid rotation.

The Commission determined that the allegations pertaining to other sectors were similarly generalized and lacked sector-specific details. It concluded that none of the companies were assigned a definitive role in any specific anti-competitive activities.

The CCI concluded that initiating an investigation based on such general and unsupported allegations would equate to a “roving and fishing inquiry” lacking foundational facts. Consequently, it found no prima facie violation of Sections 3 or 4 of the Competition Act and dismissed the case under Section 26(2).