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.
