Case Law Details
Tamarai Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Teesta Distributors (Competition Commission of India)
OP-1 to OP-4 offered minimum rates of Rs. 10,000 (per draw per scheme) as prescribed by the Central and State Lottery (Regulation) Rules. The Commission further notes that OP-1 had only bid for the paper lottery while OP-2, OP-3 and OP- 4 bid for the online lottery segments.
It is further observed from the records that the State Lottery Committee (SLC), in its meeting held on 18.05.2012, accepted the bids offered by OP-2, OP-3 and OP-4 for online lotteries for an initial period of two years or the period as determined by the Government of Mizoram from time to time. On 22.05.20 12, SLC invited OP-2, OP-3 and OP-4 to negotiate their bid amounts and succeeded in enhancing the bids to Rs. 10,500/- per draw and Rs. 400/- as administrative charges; on the very same day, OP-1 was contacted over the phone by a member of SLC to match the same bid amount in respect of paper lotteries. OP-1 agreed to match the revised amount. The Government approved the SLC recommendations on 23 .05.2012 and, in addition, the single bid for paper lottery of OP-1 was accepted. Accordingly, four bidders were selected and awarded six draws of lotteries per day. The Commission also notes that all four OPs (OP-1 to OP-4) had jointly signed a letter dated 23.05.20 12, wherein they had expressed their gratitude for having been selected as successful bidders.
Having considered the investigation report and the replies filed thereto by the contesting OPs, the Commission, at the outset, is of the opinion that the conclusions drawn by the DG are essentially based on identical quoting of bids by OP-1 to OP-4. This aspect stands explained from the replies furnished by these OPs as well as the response provided by OP-5, i.e., the Government of Mizoram. It seems that OP-1 to OP-4 quoted Rs. 10,000/- per draw, which was also the base price as per the extant There is no doubt that there did not appear to be any competitive bidding amongst the OPs, but such parallel conduct in itself cannot be equated with collusion so as to return a finding of bid rigging by the Commission in the absence of any plus factors or corroborative evidence, particularly when such benchmark was already available and known to all potential bidders.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
