Government Instructions To Curb Tender Cartelization Do Not Usurp CCI's Powers: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging government communications issued to ensure fair and transparent participation in open tenders and prevent cartelization and bid rigging, holding that the instructions did not usurp the statutory powers of the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

The Court held that the communications merely contemplated administrative steps and possible reference of material to the CCI where evidence of cartelization was found. 

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to pay ₹50,000 to the State Legal Services Authority within two weeks with the amount earmarked for the welfare of juveniles.

"It does not convey any sense that the said Authority would usurp the power of the Competition Commission conferred under the said Act. Rather, it is in conformity with the provisions contained under Section 26, under which a reference has to be made to the Competition Commission and, if the Competition Commission forms a prima facie opinion, it may direct an investigation to be made by the Director General. There is no indication that the said Authority would discharge the duties and functions entrusted to the Competition Commission under the said Act; rather, it only contemplates the action or steps to be taken in this regard.", the Court held. 

The petitioner Bikramananda Mohanty, challenged communications dated August 5 and August 19, 2026, issued by Odisha Works Department authorities directing tender inviting authorities to ensure genuine competition, examine suspected cartelization or bid-rigging, conduct comparative cost analysis and take appropriate administrative action, including rejection of bids where legally permissible.

Before the High Court, Mohanty argued that the communications effectively encroached upon the CCI's exclusive power to inquire into cartelization and direct investigation under the Competition Act, 2002. 

The Court held that rejection of a bid remains within the domain of the Tender Inviting Authority, which may proceed with or cancel a tender subject to applicable limitations.

It said the August 19 communication could only have a remote connection with material that may subsequently be referred to the CCI and could at best, act as a trigger for invoking the Competition Act. 

The Bench observed that unless relevant material is placed before the CCI, it cannot form a prima facie opinion for directing an investigation. Thus, the departmental communication did not itself amount to an exercise of the CCI's statutory jurisdiction. 

The Court further noted that the authorities had expressly directed that evidence of cartelization should be reported to the CCI. 

The Bench also found no reason to interfere with any rejection of the petitioner's bid, observing that such rejection constituted an independent decision of the Tender Inviting Authority. It noted that the communications themselves did not override or undermine the CCI's powers under the Competition Act. 

What weighed with the Court was the petitioner's attempt to evade the departmental communications with the apparent underlying intention of facilitating cartelization and therefore held that the case was not a fit one for judicial interference.

"The conduct of the Petitioner gives us an impression that he sought to get away from the aforesaid letters, obviously with the latent intent to promote cartelization, and, therefore, we do not find this to be a fit case warranting interference."

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. The Court directed the petitioner to pay ₹50,000 to the State Legal Services Authority within two weeks with the amount earmarked for the welfare of juveniles.

For Petitioner: Prabodha Chandra Nayak, Advocate

For Respondent: Sanjay Rath, AGA