In Re: Alleged anti-competitive conduct by various bidders in supply and installation of signages at specified locations of State Bank of India across Ina (Competition Commission of India)
Brief Facts
1. The present case was taken up by the Commission suo motu under Section 19(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the ‘Act’) pursuant to a complaint dated 28.06.2018 received in the Commission, alleging bid-rigging and cartelisation in the tender floated by SBI Infra Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (‘SBIIMS’) for the supply and installation of new signages/replacement of existing signages for branches/offices/ATMs of SBI located at specified metro centres of various circles of SBI across India (‘Impugned Tender’). From the facts on record, it appeared that certain bidders in the Impugned Tender were co-ordinating and fixing the prices of their services as well as allocating the market amongst themselves, with the object of distorting fair bidding process.
2. Noting the foregoing, the Commission formed a prima facie view that a case of contravention of the provisions of Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act is made out with respect to the Impugned Tender. Accordingly, the Commission passed an order dated 19.05.2020 under Section 26(1) of the Act directing the Director General (‘DG’) to cause an investigation into the matter and submit a report. The Commission directed that if, during the course of investigation, the DG comes across anticompetitive conduct of any other entity/person in addition to those mentioned in the complaint, the DG shall be at liberty to investigate the same. The DG was also directed to investigate the role of the officials/persons who, at the time of such contravention, were in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the businesses of parties/bidders as well as persons/officers with whose consent or connivance, contravention was committed, in terms of the provisions of Section 48 of the Act.
3. During the pendency of investigation before the DG, Avery Dennison Private Limited (‘OP-4’) filed an application on 31.08.2020 under the provisions of Section 46 of the Act read with the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 (‘Lesser Penalty Regulations’) before the Commission.
Investigation by the DG
4. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Commission, the DG conducted an investigation in the matter and submitted an investigation report.
5. The matter was initially taken up against Diamond Display Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (‘OP-1’), Autostriping India Pvt. Ltd. (‘OP-2’), Opal Signs Pvt. Ltd. (‘OP-3’), OP-4 and Amreesh Neon Pvt. Ltd. (‘OP-5’) for alleged contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. However, during the investigation, the DG also noted the role played by Mr. Naresh Kumar Dasari of Macromedia Digital Imaging Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Manish Jodhavat of Hith Impex Pvt. Ltd. in the bid-rigging exercise. As such, the DG added Macromedia Digital Imaging Pvt. Ltd. (‘OP-6’) and Hith Impex Pvt. Ltd. (‘OP-7’) also to the array of parties in the matter (hereinafter, OP-1 to OP-7 are collectively referred to as the ‘Opposite Parties’/‘OPs’).
6. During investigation, the DG issued notices to all the OPs, SBIIMS and third parties to collect relevant information. Besides, the DG also deposed the key personnel of the OPs on oath. In addition, call data records (‘CDRs’) of the key personnel of the OPs were also collected from the relevant telecom service providers for conducting analysis.
7. The Investigation revealed that the name of Autostriping India Pvt. Ltd. e. OP-2 has been changed to AGX Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 06.08.2019. Accordingly, the Commission, vide order dated 04.03.2021, directed that the name of OP-2 in the array of parties be changed to AGX Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
8. Based on the documentary evidence collected during investigation, the DG concluded that the OPs had indulged in anti-competitive agreement/conduct and concerted practices to rig the Impugned Tender issued on 28.03.2018, as well as geographically allocated amongst themselves the circles for which the tender was issued, thereby contravening the provisions of Section 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. The DG also identified certain individuals of the OPs to be liable in terms of Section 48 of the Act.
Proceedings before the Commission
9. The Commission considered the investigation report submitted by the DG in its ordinary meeting held on 22.06.2021 and decided to forward an electronic copy of the non-confidential version qua OPs’ version of the same to the OPs and their individuals concerned (the ‘Parties’) found liable by the DG in terms of the provisions contained in Section 48 of the Act, for filing their respective objections/suggestions to the report, along with certain financial details.
10. After receipt of objections/suggestions from the Parties, the Commission heard the Parties during oral hearing through video conference mode held on 23.11.2021. As prayed, the Parties were also allowed to file synopsis of their arguments, within two weeks, if so desired. The Commission decided to pass an appropriate order in due course.
Submissions of the Parties
OP-1 and its individuals
11. The submissions of Diamond Display Solutions Private Limited (OP-1) and its individuals are briefed as under:
11.1. OP-1 admits that the findings of the DG are substantially accurate, that there was coordination amongst OPs before the bidding date and that the numbers were discussed. It does not object to the conclusion in the Investigation Report that OP-1 to OP-7 have contravened the Act. However, OP-1 objects to the conclusion insofar as it holds OP-1 and its representatives instrumental in co-ordination amongst the OPs. OP-1 submitted that OP-4, which is one of the dominant entities in the signage industry, was actually at the core of co-ordination between and amongst the OPs.
11.2. As per the Investigation report, a meeting was conducted by the OPs on 25.05.2018 with an intention to come to an understanding with regard to geographical splitting of the bid. In this regard, OP-1 submitted that, firstly, no such meeting was conducted by OP-1 to come to any kind of understanding, and secondly, submissions regarding such meeting having been conducted were made only by representatives of OP-4 and OP-2.
11.3. Mr. Naresh Kumar Dasari of OP-6 has a long-standing business relationship with OP-1, and they also have a joint-venture namely Macro Media Diamond Display Pvt Ltd. (‘MMDD’) formed in 2017. Mr. Naresh also attended the pre-bid meeting of SBIIMS on 07.04.2018 as an authorised representative of OP-1. Further, there were consultations regarding costing of the project, manufacturing costs and the price that should be quoted by OP-1; however, OP-1 submitted that there was no existence of anti-competitive agreements or consultations entered into between OP-1 and OP-6.
11.4. E-mails dated 02.06.2018 and 04.06.2018 were prepared and sent, by Mr. Naresh Kumar Dasari of OP-6, at the behest of OP-4, who wanted the bid to be successful at all costs, since its material was being imported and was on its way to India. Further, all other inter se communications between the OPs on the date of bidding were also happening at the behest of OP-4.
11.5. Since most of the bidders decided to follow the illustrative chart shared by Mr. Naresh Kumar of OP-6 as means of an example, prices were also discussed by the officials of the OPs.
11.6. There is no adverse impact on competition in the signage industry on account of any exchanges between and amongst the OPs. This is claimed to be evidenced from the SBIIMS’s approval dated 06.06.2018, which unequivocally stated that L1 prices quoted across circles were fairly the same as market prices.
11.7. The Commission should consider mitigating factors while imposing penalty, if any, on OP-1, viz. (i) SBIIMS considering the L1 rates to be reasonable; (ii) no finding that rates were inflated; (iii) co-ordination and communication between the OPs was done at the behest of OP-4; (iv) complete absence of effects enumerated in clause (a), (b) and (c) of Section 19(3) of the Act; (v) OP-1 being a medium enterprise in terms of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (‘MSME’) Development Act, 2006; (vi) impact of COVID-19 pandemic; (vii) co-operation extended in the investigation, etc.
11.8. For an individual to be held liable under Section 48(1) of the Act, it is a prerequisite that the company should have contravened a provision of the Act. The Commission can proceed against the officers/representatives/in-charge of a company under Section 48 only after the Commission returns a finding of contravention against the defaulting company vide an order under Section 27 of the Act. In the absence of a finding against OP-1 of having contravened any of the provisions of the Act, the Commission cannot hold Mr. R. G. Venkatesh liable under Section 48(1) of the Act and proceed against him.
OP-2 and its individuals
The submissions of AGX Retail Solutions Private Limited (OP-2) and its individuals are briefed as under:
12.1. OP-2 has submitted that it understands that its communications with the other OPs in respect of SBI tender have violated the provisions of the Act, and such violations may attract monetary penalty under the Act.
12.2. OP-2 commits to comply with the provisions of the Act and clarified that it had ceased to commit such acts as soon as bidding for the SBI tender was completed. It also undertook to desist from engaging in violations of the provisions of the Act in future as well.
12.3. Mr. Arjun Reddy, Managing Director of OP-2, was not aware that the interactions that the DG Report found to be anti-competitive, amounted to violations of the provisions of Act. On the contrary, Mr. Reddy was under the impression that his co-ordination with the other parties who were bidding for the tender was in the best interest of SBI.
12.4. Mr. Arjun Reddy had provided the e-mail dated 04.06.2018 to the DG during the course of his deposition and admitted that the discussions he had with functionaries of other OPs related to bid sequences and prices. The disclosures made by Mr. Reddy effectively assisted the investigation, and no attempts were made by him to distort the nature of evidence presented to him.
12.5. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Excel Crop Care Limited v. Competition Commission of India and Another, (2017) 8 SCC 47 (‘Excel Crop Care case’), only relevant turnover of OP-2 should be considered for penalty computation. Hence, OP-2’s turnover from only ‘glow signboards’ ought to be considered for referenced financial period for the purposes of imposition of penalty, if any.
12.6. OP-2 has put in place a competition compliance program and conducted workshops to sensitize its staff about the type of conduct that could be found foul of the Act.
12.7. Several mitigating factors should also be considered while imposing penalty, if any, upon OP-2 viz. (i) mistaken belief that the conduct was lawful; (ii) cooperation during investigation; (iii) financial hardship on account of COVID-19, (iv) minimal loss suffered by SBI due to the conduct, etc.
OP-3 and its individuals
20. The submissions of Opal Signs Pvt Limited (OP-3) and its individuals are briefed as under:
13.1. OP-3 admitted that it was part of an arrangement as contemplated under Section 3(3)(c) read with 3(3)(d) of the Act. OP-3 also admitted that, in addition to the assistance sought in respect of carrying out/participating in the reverse auction, Mr. Ramesh Bharadwaj, Managing Director of OP-3, also requested Mr. Naresh Kumar Dasari of OP-6 to provide guidance and assistance in ensuring that OP-3 gets the Chennai circle.
13.2. OP-3 was interested only in the Chennai circle and had no active role apart from agreeing to bid as per the guidance provided in the e-mail dated 04.06.2018. OP-3 had never initiated any pricing or geographical allocation discussions and it was OP-4 who had planned the splitting of the orders in the Impugned Tender. It has been further submitted that the entire arrangement was headed by OP-4 (along with OP-7) who stood to gain the most as their material would be used for executing the works under the Impugned Tender.
13.3. Theoretically, even under such circumstances, OP-3 ought to have acted independently. However, given OP-4’s hold over the entire Impugned Tender and being a major materials supplier (and that OP-7 was also a materials supplier), OP-3 had little option but to participate in the co-ordination, so as to ensure that it receives the works for the Chennai circle.
13.4. OP-3 and its Managing Director Mr. Ramesh Bharadwaj were not aware that such co-ordination would be in contravention of the provisions of the Act.
13.5. Bids were at competitive market rates based on clear economic justifications, and any co-ordination in the bidding by OP-3 did not result in appreciable adverse effect on competition (‘AAEC’) in India. It is not the case that OP-3 had quoted any supra-competitive rates in the Impugned Tender. The quotation of OP-3 was competitive, which is evident from a comparison with quotations for other similar works.
13.6. None of the negative factors under clauses (a) to (c) of Section 19(3) of the Act are applicable in the present case which could demonstrate the existence of AAEC.
13.7. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Excel Crop Care case, penalty, if any, upon OP-3, can only be imposed on the turnover or profits of OP-3 derived from participation in the Impugned Tender. Further, upon Mr. Bharadwaj also, for imposition of penalty, Commission may consider only the salary drawn by him from OP-3 in the year when the payment from SBIIMS was made to OP-3.
13.8. Certain mitigating factors may be considered while imposition of penalty, if any, viz. (i) co-operation in the investigation (ii) OP-3’s limited involvement in the arrangement; (iii) OP-3 being a small enterprise in terms of MSME Development Act, 2006, etc.
13.9. Provisions of Section 48 of the Act, a penal provision (which, in law, is to be strictly interpreted) cannot apply to a contravention under Section 3 of the Act, because if an individual is to be ‘punished’ (as per Section 48) for a violation of Section 3, the sanction provisions set out in Section 27 must be fundamentally intended to be applied to individuals covered under Section 48 also. However, Section 27(b) cannot be applied to individuals drawing a salary falling within the ambit of Section 48 of the Act as the terms ‘profit’ and ‘turnover’ only are used therein.
13.10. Plain reading of Section 48 of the Act makes it amply clear that punishment mentioned therein can only be imposed after the company is found to have contravened the provisions of the Act. In the present matter, the Commission has not arrived at any finding against OP-3, much less a finding of contravention. Hence, it would be premature to proceed against an individual under Section 48 when the question of contravention by the company itself is not concluded.
OP-4 and its individuals
14. OP-4 and its individuals have provided vital disclosures in the form of information, documents and other evidence, co-operated with the DG and the Commission in a genuine, full, continuous and expeditious manner, and not concealed any information. Accordingly, they merit benefit of 100% reduction in penalty, as provided in Regulation 4 of the LPR. In addition to voluntary disclosures, certain mitigating factors also exist in the instant case. OP-4 has implemented a rigorous competition compliance programme and continues to regularly train its staff to avoid any such instance of violation of the provisions of the Act in future. It has also been submitted that the impugned conduct did not result in any loss to SBI or any other entity due to OP-4’s conduct as it withdrew from participation. It was also submitted during the oral hearing that OP-4 withdrew from the Impugned Tender as soon as its internal teams became aware of the inadvertent violation.
OP-5 and its individuals
15. The submissions of Amreesh Neon Private Limited (OP-5) and its individuals are briefed as under:
15.1. The DG has failed to prove the existence of any agreement between the OPs, and in the absence of any concrete evidence, OP-5 cannot be held liable under Section 3(3) of the Act. It is submitted that “… What appeared and alleged to be a collusion was nothing but a result of market dynamics wherein the competitors in order to survive in the said market are bound to incidentally interact in some manner or the other and more particularly because of the process of biding (e-reverse bidding) which was new concept to the OPs the interaction was initiated by SBIIMS only.” There is no agreement between OP-5 and the other OPs, and thus, no case is made out for eliminating or reducing competition for bids or adversely affecting or manipulating the process of bidding. Therefore, proceedings qua OP-5 are liable to be quashed.
15.2. SBIIMS itself disclosed the bidding price, and thereafter, the contenders were asked to bid a lesser price than that.
15.3. The e-mail received from Mr. Naresh Kumar Dasari of OP-6 was a format prepared in excel sheet, which was just an illustrator to help the bidder understand the format of bidding and fill in the tender consulting the same. Further, prices submitted by all bidders are not exactly the same as given in the illustrator.
15.4. The price quoted by OP-5 in the bidding was based upon the cost of raw materials and expenditure, and market resources with a very small profit margin. Same was not, at any point, the basis of the e-mail sent by Mr. Manish Jodhavat of OP-7.
15.5. OP-5 also relied on certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to assert that price parallelism by itself is not conclusive of an arrangement of bid-rigging. Owing to a single buyer, situation of oligopoly prevailed in the present matter. Thus, it was SBIIMS and not the OPs who had control and influence over price fixation.
15.6. The DG has failed to prove AAEC on account of alleged anti-competitive conduct of OPs.
15.7. The Commission should also consider certain mitigating factors while calculating penalty, if any, such as the fact that OP-5 is not a habitual offender and it cooperated with the DG’s investigation at all stages.
OP-6
16. The submissions of Macromedia Digital Imaging Pvt Limited (OP-6) are briefed as under:
16.1. The Investigation Report wrongly finds that MMDI (OP-6) has violated the provisions of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. It has been further submitted that OP-6 was never any part of the agreement including the stage of the bidding and even while executing project.
16.2. OP-6 was never a part of the bidding process and Mr. Naresh Kumar Dasari, its Director, acted upon his personal indulgence and not at the behest of OP-6. Further, Mr. Naresh had attended the pre-bid meeting on 07.04.2018 as a representative of OP-1 and not OP-6.
16.3. Starting from the Expression of Interest (‘EOI’) in 2017 till the completion of the project, OP-6 never involved itself in any of the bidding or manufacturing processes for the project.
16.4. OP-6 and OP-1 formed a 50:50 joint-venture MMMD in 2017. This relationship and joint venture are entirely independent of any of the activities being impugned in the present matter. MMDD has manufactured a small volume of the works allotted to OP-1 in the Impugned Tender and billed the same to OP-6, who, in turn, billed the same at the same price to OP-1. The same is only a trading transaction and no profit has been made by OP-6 in the said project.
16.5. OP-6 has also prayed the Commission to consider mitigating factors viz. MMDI being a MSME in terms of MSME Act, 2006, difficulties caused by Covid-19, cooperation in investigation, etc. to determine penalty, if any.
Mr. Naresh Kumar Dasari of OP-6
17. Mr. Naresh Kumar Dasari of OP-6 in his separate submissions has stated as under:
17.1. Mr. Naresh got involved in the bidding process only upon invitation from Mr. Shamrendra Kumar and Mr. Arbind Singh of OP-4 and Mr. Manish Jodhavat of OP-7. Owing to his vast experience in the reverse e-bidding process and his longterm association with Mr. R. G. Venkatesh of OP-1, he decided to help out the participants to succeed in the bidding process.
17.2. The role of Mr. Naresh ended with the e-mail dated 04.06.2018, and there was no further involvement of his in the entire process. Neither Mr. Naresh nor OP-6 gained anything from the Impugned Tender. Role of Mr. Naresh is limited to only coordination and explanation of the bidding process and the same was done out of goodwill and long-standing relation with OP-4 and not for gain or any undue benefit.
17.3. The DG Report wrongly finds Mr. Naresh to have violated the provisions of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act as Mr. Naresh was never a part of the agreement.
17.4. Mr. Naresh’s involvement and the e-mails dated 02.06.2018 and 04.06.2018 were only sent at the insistence of OP-4 to assist the qualified bidders so that the second bid for the Impugned Tender would succeed, unlike the first one.
17.5. Mr. Naresh is not liable under Section 48(1) of the Act, as Mr. Naresh acted at the behest of his own personal indulgence and not at the behest of OP-6. Further, only upon finding the company guilty of having contravened the Act, an individual who was responsible for the conduct of its business can be held to be vicariously liable by virtue of Section 48. Therefore, it must be the company’s conduct that must contravene the Act. However, nothing in the DG Report indicates that OP-6 committed a contravention of Section 3(3) of the Act. In this regard, it has been further averred that OP-6 has not participated in the Impugned Tender and was not directly or indirectly involved in any arrangement in relation to the said tender. The investigation report, on the other hand, finds a role of Mr. Naresh, and does not point towards any specific role of conduct of OP-6 in the coordination in relation to the Impugned Tender. In such circumstances, Mr. Naresh cannot be implicated under Section 48(1) of the Act.
17.6. During the oral hearing, the learned counsel appearing for Mr. Dasari submitted that he has learnt his lesson and apologises for his conduct. It was further submitted that he had no intention to facilitate a cartel and was only helping others with no benefits flowing to him.
17.7. Mr. Naresh Kumar Dasari has also prayed that the Commission should consider various factors, viz., full cooperation with the investigation, first allegation of anti-competitive conduct, etc., and impose a token or low penalty as a deterrent.
OP-7 and its individuals
18. The submissions of Hith Impex Pvt Limited (OP-7) and its individuals are briefed as under:
18.1. The present proceedings are non-maintainable as there is no agreement for the purposes of distributing signage products of OP-4 to SBIIMS. The findings in the investigation report are based on hearsay evidence and there is no documentary evidence that shows the involvement of OP-7 in the subject matter of the investigation. The e-mail dated 04.06.2018 is also not marked to OP-7 or Mr. Manish Jodhavat of OP-7.
18.2. OP-7 had no arrangement with any of the OPs in any manner apart from being a distributor of flex and vinyl products of OP-4. Further, OP-7 is not an exclusive distributor of OP-4 in the market.
18.3. OP-7 is not concerned with the bidding process of supply and installation of signages of SBI at specified locations as alleged and it never participated in the bidding process. OP-7 did not had any knowledge of working of OP-1 to Op-6, as alleged in the Investigation Report.
18.4. OP-7 has been implicated in the matter based on alleged ‘inputs’ given to Mr. Naresh Kumar Dasari of OP-6 by Mr. Manish Jodhavat of OP-7. A perusal of the investigation report reveals that the only ‘input’ given by Mr. Manish relates to reduction of the price of flex and vinyl of OP-4 to be supplied for the Impugned Tender. Even assuming without admitting the said input, the reduction of prices mentioned was only beneficial to SBIIMS, and the same does not amount to contravention of any provisions of the Act.
18.5. OP-7 denied that it had submitted dummy bids in SBI’s EOI of December 2017 and SBIIMS’s EOI of February 2018 to gain access to the information of all the participants in the EOI. It submitted that various participants had submitted such bids to qualify for tender participation.
Analysis of the Commission
19. The Commission has perused the Investigation Report, suggestions/objections and arguments thereto filed by the Parties, and other material available on record, including the lesser penalty application filed by OP-4. The Commission has also heard the oral arguments advanced by the Parties.
20. Before proceeding to examine the evidence collected by the DG, the Commission deems it appropriate to note the background of the present matter.
21. SBI had issued an EOI on 07.12.2017 for pre-qualification of signage solution providers for replacing/providing external signages. However, the said EOI could not be carried forward due to lack of adequate response from the vendors complying prescribed pre-qualification criteria, and as such, the process could not reach the bidding stage. After scrapping the EOI dated 07.12.2017, SBI directed SBIIMS (a wholly owned subsidiary of SBI for taking care of premises and estate-related matters), to take necessary action regarding the roll-out of SBI’s refreshed brand identity and standardization of the bank’s signage boards at branches/ATMs. Consequently, SBIIMS issued another EOI on 08.02.2018. In response to the said EOI, SBIIMS received 44 applications. The same were scrutinized by a committee formed for such purpose, and 9 vendors were recommended to be pre-qualified for the signage project work which included OP-1 to OP-5.
22. Subsequently, SBIIMS issued a tender on 28.03.2018 to these 9 vendors for the supply and installation of SBI’s new LED back-lit signage/replacement of existing signages for branches/offices/ATMs located at specified metro centers of various circles of SBI across India, using specified and approved flex & vinyl with cut & paste method. In this regard, a pre-bid meeting of vendors was scheduled on 07.04.2018, which was attended by Mr. Naresh Kumar Dasari (on behalf of OP-1), Mr. K. Shrujan (OP-2), Mr. Ramesh Bharadwaj (OP-3), Mr. Suhas Bhatia (OP-4), Mr. Arvind Sharma (OP-5), and Mr. Gandhar Trihan (Design Dialogues) and Mr. Sauvik Chakravarty (Graffiti Signgraphics). Thereafter, 5 vendors qualified in the technical bid evaluation, and they were invited to submit their price bids for the project work. However, the e-reverse auction held on 03.05.2018 could not succeed due to lack of responses.
23. Accordingly, SBIIMS held a meeting with the prospective bidders on 23.05.2018 to deliberate upon various issues pertaining to the e-reverse auction mode of tendering and difficulties faced by the bidders in the process, and to give necessary clarifications on the same. The said meeting was attended by Mr. R. G. Venkatesh (OP-1), Mr. Arjun Reddy and Mr. Ritanshu Mohan (OP-2), Mr. Ramesh Bharadwaj (OP-3), Mr. Shamrendra Kumar and Mr. Arbind Singh (OP-4) and Mr. Manish Thakkar (OP-5). In the said meeting, it was decided that SBIIMS would conduct fresh circle-wise e-reverse bidding for all 13 circles with certain changes. The vendors were also informed that the work would be allotted on a 50:30:20 basis in terms of the number of branches/offices/ATMs of the circle, irrespective of the quantities/area of signages. All the pre-qualified vendors agreed to the said changes and submitted their written concurrences.
24. Subsequently, fresh e-reverse bidding was conducted on 04.06.2018 and 05.06.2018 for 12 out of 13 circles (excluding Ahmedabad) with start bid price of ₹8,750 per mt., decremental value of ₹100 per sq. mt. and freezing the rate of timer switch at ₹4,750 per sq. mt. All 5 qualified vendors/ OPs (i.e., OP-1 to OP-5) participated and submitted their bids in the e-reverse auction. After completion of the e-reverse bidding process, circle-wise quotes (excluding GST) received from L-1, L-2 and L-3 bidders stood as under:
(In ₹ per sq. mt.)
