Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Corporate Law

State-Funded Free Travel Scheme Not Prima Facie Abuse of Dominance: CCI

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 12865
Case Name
Bipin T. Alappat Vs State of Kerala (Competition Commission of India)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement

Bipin T. Alappat Vs State of Kerala (Competition Commission of India)

Summary: The Competition Commission of India considered an Information filed by Mr. Bipin T. Alappat and Mr. Jose under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, alleging contravention of Section 4 by the State of Kerala and Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). The Informants were private stage carriage operators in Kerala. Informant No. 1 was stated to operate eighteen buses on the Thrissur—Palakkad and Thrissur—Adat routes, while Informant No. 2 operated three buses on the Thrissur—Govindapuram and Thrissur—Kozhinjampara routes.

The dispute arose from Government Order GO(MS) No. 16/2026/TRANS dated 11.06.2026, under which the Government of Kerala introduced the ‘Priyadarshini Scheme’ as part of its ‘Indira Guarantee’ programme. With effect from 15.06.2026, the Scheme provided free travel in KSRTC buses to all women, irrespective of age, and transgender persons. The first phase was stated to be intended to facilitate mobility, increase employment opportunities for women and promote their socio-economic empowerment. The Informants alleged that the benefit was confined to KSRTC buses although private operators provided identical services on the same routes.

According to the Informants, implementation of the Scheme caused a substantial proportion of women passengers to shift from private buses to KSRTC buses because of the free-travel benefit. They alleged that passenger occupancy, passenger volumes and revenues of private operators consequently declined. The Informants characterised the relevant market as the market for provision of stage carriage passenger transport services in Kerala and alleged abuse of dominant position. They invoked Section 4(2)(a)(i), contending that the Scheme resulted in an unfair or discriminatory condition; Section 4(2)(b)(i), alleging that the conduct limited or restricted the provision of passenger transport services; and Section 4(2)(c), alleging denial of effective market access to private operators.

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 21,368

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.