CCI Dismisses Complaint Against Adani Group and Azure Power in Solar Tender Dispute

CCI Rejects Complaint Alleging Anti-Competitive Practices in Solar Power Tender

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has rejected a complaint alleging anti-competitive practices by Adani Group entities, Azure Power, and others in a solar power tender floated by the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI). The complaint, which was filed against Adani Enterprises Ltd, Adani Green Energy Four Ltd, Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, Azure Power India Pvt Ltd, SECI, and several state power utilities, alleged that they had violated competition norms.

The CCI, in its order, observed that the country's power generation market comprises many significant public and private players, and that Adani Group, prima facie, does not appear to be a dominant player. The regulator noted that the power generation market in India is comprised of many significant players, including National Thermal Power Corporation, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Tata Power Co. Ltd., Torrent Power, and Reliance Power.

The competition watchdog further said that allegations regarding cross-subsidisation, exclusionary practices, and entry barriers were not supported by cogent evidence. The complainant had alleged that certain clauses, including the "Green Shoe Option," tariff revisions, and other conditions in solar tenders, restricted competition and effectively excluded smaller players. However, the CCI observed that the complainant failed to establish that Adani Group held a dominant position in the relevant market.

Read also: SpaceX Seeks Record $75 Billion IPO, Potentially Positioning Elon Musk as the World's First Trillionaire

The regulator also found that the alleged conduct, which included offering bribes to government officials to enable SECI to enter into Power Sales Agreements with buying utilities, did not seem to qualify as an abusive conduct (exclusionary or exploitative) within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act. With regard to the clause-specific allegations, the CCI observed that the complainant had not provided any cogent evidence of the request for selection (RfS) documents being designed in a manner that encourages participation of only big players in the market.

The CCI is of the view that there is no prima facie case of contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act warranting an investigation into the matter. Therefore, the matter is directed to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act.