Rashi Anand Suri Vs Maharashtra Public Works Department (Competition Commission of India)
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) considered an Information filed by Mrs. Rashi Anand Suri under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 against Maharashtra Public Works Department (OP-1) and Techfab India Infrastructure LLP (OP-2), alleging contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The Informant stated that OP-1 implemented its Schedule of Rates (SoR) 2022-23 on 25.07.2022 and alleged that entries at Serial Nos. 1752 to 1778 contained exclusionary, non-generic technical specifications corresponding to proprietary products manufactured by OP-2, in some instances specifically naming OP-2. According to the Informant, these specifications allegedly excluded other manufacturers and effectively predetermined eligibility, thereby restricting competition. The Informant also relied on Rule 144 of the General Financial Rules, 2017 and alleged contraventions of Sections 3(1), 3(3), and 4 of the Act, seeking investigation under Section 26(1), revision of the specifications, cease-and-desist directions, penalties under Section 27, and other appropriate orders.
The Commission considered the Information in its ordinary meeting held on 08.07.2026. It noted that although bid rigging had been alleged, no particular tender was identified in which bids were invited, evaluated, or awarded. Under Section 3(3)(d), bid rigging or collusive bidding contemplates an agreement or understanding among enterprises or persons engaged in identical or similar activities having the effect of eliminating or reducing competition or manipulating the bidding process. The Commission found that no material demonstrated any agreement, arrangement, or concerted practice between OP-1 and OP-2 or among bidders. It further observed that the matter did not arise from any specific tender process and that no material showed that a tender pursuant to the impugned SoR entries had resulted in an award producing an appreciable adverse effect on competition.
Regarding tender conditions, the Commission noted that formulation of technical specifications, eligibility conditions, and procurement requirements primarily falls within the domain of procuring entities, which may set their terms and conditions subject to applicable laws and regulations. As to Section 3(4), the Commission found that the Information did not disclose any agreement between OP-1 and OP-2 involving an exclusive arrangement, refusal to deal, or other vertical restraint, and no material established such an arrangement. Regarding Section 4, the Informant had alleged that OP-2 was dominant in the relevant market for supplying specified products to government projects, but had not provided evidence establishing dominance or abuse of dominance in any specific relevant market. Accordingly, the Commission found that no prima facie case of contravention of Sections 3 or 4 was made out against OP-1 and OP-2. The Information was therefore closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, and the Secretary was directed to communicate the order to the Informant.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
1. The present Information has been filed by Mrs. Rashi Anand Suri (Informant’) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (`Act’), against Maharashtra Public Works Department (`OP-1′) and Techfab India Infrastructure LLP, (`OP-2′), inter alia alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
2. The Informant stated that OP-1 implemented the Schedule of Rates (`SoR’) 2022-23 on 25.07.2022, which serves as the mandatory, binding document for the entire procurement lifecycle, from estimation to final payment.
3. The Informant alleged that the impugned SoR contains specific entries at Serial Numbers 1752 to 1778, where technical descriptions are drafted in an exclusionary and non-generic manner. Rather than using functional or performance-based criteria, these specifications explicitly detail the proprietary technical characteristics and configurations of products manufactured exclusively by OP-2 and in some cases, specifically citing the name of OP-2. Such conduct results in exclusion of other market participants.
4. It has been alleged that as a result of these brand-specific requirements, only OP-2 can satisfy the stipulated criteria, effectively creating a monopoly. This ensures that all other manufacturers, even those offering technically equivalent or superior products, are automatically disqualified at the eligibility stage. Consequently, this exclusion occurs before bidding even begins, making the subsequent procurement process a sham and completely eliminating genuine competition.
5. The Informant further stated that Rule 144 of the General Financial Rules, 2017 (` GFR’) mandates that procuring entities must ensure efficiency, equitable treatment and cost-effectiveness by using objective, generic and functional specifications rather than brand-specific requirements. By embedding proprietary and brand-aligned specifications directly into the SoR, OP-1 has institutionalized exclusionary practices which have eliminated the possibility of competition at later stages. Such conduct effectively forecloses the relevant market to all competitors except OP-2, insulates prices from competitive pressure and causes appreciable harm to both fair competition and public interest.
6. It is alleged that the conduct of the Opposite Parties contravenes Section 3(1) of the Act, by restricting market access, eliminating competition, and resulting in appreciable adverse effect on competition. Furthermore, the drafting of such specifications, in a manner that predetermines the successful bidder and excludes of other market participants by design, thereby attracts the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act.
7. It is further alleged that, by virtue of the exclusive specifications embedded in the SoR, OP-2 enjoys a position of dominance in the relevant market for supplying specified products to government projects. OP-2 is using its dominant market power to secure exclusive access to public contracts which constitutes abuse of dominance in violation of Section 4 of the Act.
8. In view of above, the Informant has sought the following reliefs from the Commission: (i) to direct an investigation by the Director General (`DG’) under Section 26(1) of the Act; (ii) to declare the impugned specifications, contained in OP-1’s SoR 2022-23, anticompetitive and contrary to law; (iii) to pass appropriate directions for removal and revision of all proprietary and brand-specific specifications to restore competitiveness and performance-based procurement norms; (iv) to pass cease-and-desist directions and impose penalties under Section 27 of the Act; and (v) to pass any such other orders as the Commission may deem fit in the interest of justice.
9. The Commission considered the Information in its ordinary meeting held on 08.07.2026 and decided to pass an appropriate order due course.
10. The Commission notes that the Informant is mainly aggrieved by the design of procurement specifications in SoR. While the Informant has alleged bid rigging in the present matter, no particular tender has been referred wherein bids were invited, evaluated, or awarded.
11. With regard to the allegation of bid rigging, it is observed that bid rigging or collusive bidding under Section 3(3)(d) of the Act contemplates an agreement or understanding amongst enterprises or persons engaged in identical or similar production or trading of goods or provision of services which has the effect of eliminating or reducing competition for bids or adversely affecting or manipulating the process for bidding. In the present case, no material has been placed on record demonstrating any agreement, arrangement or concerted practice between OP-1 and OP-2, or amongst the bidders, inter se.
12. Further, the present matter does not arise from any specific tender process. There is no material placed on record demonstrating that any particular tender was issued pursuant to the impugned entries in SoR wherein contract was awarded in a manner resulting in appreciable adverse effect on competition. The allegations are founded principally on the assertion that OP-1 framed specifications in SoR favouring OP-2. Accordingly, in absence of any evidence of arrangement between them or collusive bidding, no case is made out against OP-1 and OP-2 within the meaning of Section 3(3)(d) of the Act.
13. The Commission further notes that the issues arising from tender conditions prescribed by the procurers have been dealt in the past in several cases wherein the Commission has been of the view that formulation of technical specifications, eligibility conditions and procurement requirements fall primarily within the domain of the procuring entities. The procurer may be at liberty to set its terms and conditions, subject to applicable laws and regulations as the procurers/consumers are in the best position to evaluate what meets their requirements.
14. As regards Section 3(4) of the Act, the Commission notes that the Information does not disclose any agreement between OP-1 and OP-2 in the nature of an exclusive arrangement, refusal to deal or any other vertical restraint. No material has been furnished to establish the existence of any such arrangement. In the absence of evidence of any anti-competitive agreement attributable to OP-1 and OP-2, the Information does not reveal a contravention of Section 3(4) of the Act.
15. Further, regarding the contravention under Section 4 of the Act, the Informant has mentioned that by virtue of the exclusive specifications embedded in the SoR, OP-2 enjoys a position of dominance in the relevant market for supply of the specified products for government projects. In this regard, Informant has neither provided any evidence to show dominance nor abuse thereof, by OP-2, in any specific relevant market. Accordingly, no case of contravention under Section 4 of the Act can be made out against OP-2.
16. In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds that no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 or 4 of the Act is made out against OP-1 and OP-2 in the instant matter. The Information is, therefore, closed forthwith in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26(2) of the Act.
17. The Secretary is directed to communicate the order to the Informant, accordingly.
