Chandigarh Airport Taxi Licence Not Exclusive, CCI Closes Complaint Against Nanuan Travels Operator

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Monday closed a complaint filed by a solo cab driver against Nanuan Travels and Shaheed Bhagat Singh International Airport, Mohali, alleging anti-competitive conduct arising from Nanuan's licence to operate taxi services at the airport.

In an order dated June 8, 2026, Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag observed that the license granted to Nanuan Travels did not confer an exclusive right to operate taxi services at the airport.

The Commission observed,

“The Commission notes that awarding tender to OP-1 does not, per se, confer any statutory or de-facto exclusive right to operate in the said premises.The license merely enables OP-1 to operate within the designated space subject to terms and conditions imposed by CHIAL.”

Harmeet Singh, a self-employed cab driver operating under an All India Tourist Permit, alleged that Nanuan Travels, which had been awarded the tender to provide taxi services at the airport, was preventing solo cab drivers from accessing areas near arrival gate no. 1.

According to Singh, representatives of Nanuan Travels stopped him near arrival gate no. 1 on September 10, 2024, demanded to see his booking details and threatened him when he refused. He also alleged that Nanuan's booth at the arrival gate enabled it to capture passengers exiting the airport, charge fares exceeding agreed limits, and intimidate independent drivers.

Singh further alleged that local law enforcement authorities failed to act on complaints made by him and sought interim directions restraining Nanuan Travels from interfering with the operations of solo cab drivers and online booking-based services.

After examining the license agreement between Nanuan Travels and Chandigarh International Airport Limited (CHIAL), the Commission noted that Clause 14 expressly provided that the licensee had no claim to exclusivity and that CHIAL remained free to permit similar facilities within the airport premises.

The Commission further noted that solo taxi operators and app-based service providers such as Ola and Uber were also permitted to provide services at the airport and that passengers retained the choice to use such alternatives.

The Commission observed, “In view of the allegations levelled by the Informant, the Commission is of the view that the grievances raised by the Informant regarding restriction on solo taxi/cab drivers appear to relate to operational arrangements rather than any anti-competitive conduct attributed to OP-1 flowing from an exclusive right.”

The Commission also noted that there was no evidence indicating any anti-competitive agreement, cartel, or bid-rigging and observed that allegations relating to coercion and violence concerned alleged criminal conduct falling outside the purview of competition law.

Holding that no prima facie case was made out against Nanuan Travels or the airport authority, the Commission closed the information and rejected the application seeking interim relief.