Shri Kshitiz Arya & other v. Viacom18 Media Pvt. Ltd. & Others
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission of India considered an investigation into alleged cartelization in Uttar Pradesh road construction tenders. The Commission held that evidence of common ownership or a sole bid did not substantiate bid rigging or price determination in the absence of material indicating collusion. Consequently, the Commission decided to close the matter.
What did the court decide?
The matter is ordered to be closed forthwith under Section 26(6) of the Act as no material warrants further inquiry.
What the court decided
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2018
In Re: Alleged cartelization in road construction work in the State of Uttar Pradesh
CORAM
Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Chairperson
Ms. Sangeeta Verma Member
Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi Member
Order under Section 26(6) the Competition Act, 2002
- The present case was initiated by the Commission suo-motu after taking cognizance of possible instances of bid rigging by contractors engaged in road construction in response to the various tenders floated by the State of Uttar Pradesh, on the basis of a report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (“CAG”) titled “Performance Audit of Construction Management in Road Works (Government of Uttar Pradesh, Report No. 04 of the year 2017)” (“the report”).
- As per the report, Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state in the country and has made massive investments in the road sector in recent years to improve connectivity. The Public Works Department (PWD) is responsible for the construction and maintenance of roads, buildings and bridges in the state. The PWD had established two public sector corporations, namely the Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corporation Limited (UPSBC) in 1972 and the Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited (UPRNN) in 1976 for the construction and maintenance of major bridges and buildings respectively in the State. The road works are executed by PWD by awarding work to various contractors. Chapter 7 of the report talked about cartelization in various tenders floated/bids submitted for road construction undertaken in the state during the period 2011-2016. In this regard, CAG
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether mere common ownership of participating firms without evidence of collusion constitutes bid rigging under Section 3 of the Competition Act.
Whether a single bid in a tender process in the absence of a specific rule to cancel the tender amounts to anti-competitive conduct.
Whether the investigation report by the Director General warrants further inquiry into alleged cartelization in road construction tenders.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Competition Commission of India
Coram
Ashok Kumar Gupta
Sangeeta Verma
Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court