Case Law Details
Mr. Dushyant Vs National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) (Competition Commission of India)
The Commission has, in some previous cases, recognising the autonomy of the procurer, stated that the procurer is the best judge of what and how it wants. At the cost of repetition, the Commission notes that every consumer/ procurer must have the freedom to exercise its choice freely in the procurement of goods/services and such a choice is sacrosanct in a market economy. While exercising their choice, OPs are free to stipulate standards for procurement, and the same cannot be held to be out-rightly anti-competitive and will depend, inter alia, on factors such as the nature of the procurement, the size of procurer, the goods/ services sought to be procured by it, and whether such buying will result in foreclosure for other sellers operating in the market who are competing to sell and are substantially dependent on such buying process. Further, the autonomy to specify the requirements of procurement is inherent in the procurers. When the procurer is a dominant buyer in its sphere of economic activity and its unilateral conduct in the buying process can tend to distort competition on the supply side of such market, then there is reason to be circumspect.
In the present case, as regards OP-2- OP 37 seeking NABL’s accreditation (based on their policies/ guidelines/ rules of procurement/ some enactments governing their functioning), there is nothing to suggest that NABL had any role in framing the same.
Before parting with the order, the Commission would like to reiterate that, for effective competition in the market, it is apposite that procurers should specify only the standards that they desire to be adhered to by suppliers of goods and services, rather than specifying names/ nominations or prescribing any conditions/criteria that may lead to certain competitors being ousted from the market.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no prima facie case of contravention of any of the provisions of Section 3 and/or 4 of the Act is made out against the OPs for causing an investigation into the matter, and therefore, the matter is ordered to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant for relief(s) as sought under Sectio
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
