CCI Finds No Anti-Competitive Conduct By Adani Entities , Azure Power In SECI Solar Tender

The Competition Commission of India on Thursday closed a complaint alleging that SECI's solar power tenders favoured Adani Group entities and Azure Power, finding no prima facie violation of competition law.

A coram comprising Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag held that no case was made out to warrant an investigation, observing:

“Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Commission is of the view that there is no prima-facie case of contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act warranting an investigation into the matter. Therefore, the matter is directed to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act.”

The information was filed by Ravi Sharma, who alleged that the Request for Selection (RfS) issued by the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) on June 25, 2019, for setting up 7 GW solar projects linked with manufacturing facilities, was structured to favour large players such as Adani Enterprises Ltd. and Adani Green Energy Limited, along with Azure Power India Private Limited. He contended that certain bid conditions, including provisions allowing allocation of additional capacity, restricted wider participation and were later followed by reallocation of project capacity.

Sharma also referred to developments between 2020 and 2024, including tariff revisions, project reallocations and alleged coordination among parties, to argue that the tender process distorted competition.

Examining the record, the Commission found that the informant had failed to substantiate allegations of anti-competitive agreements or manipulation of the bidding process. It emphasised that the formulation of tender conditions falls within the domain of the procurer and cannot be termed anti-competitive merely because certain criteria may favour particular bidders.

On the challenge to the Green Shoe Option in the tender, the Commission noted that its inclusion was in line with directions issued by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy and had also been examined by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission. It held that the provision did not restrict participation or violate the Competition Act.

The Commission further found no material to support claims of cross-subsidisation, leveraging, creation of entry barriers or other exclusionary conduct, and observed that no evidence had been placed on record to establish either dominance or its abuse. It said:

“Further, the Commission observes that allegation against OP-2 of deriving benefits like cross-subsidisation and economies of scale from other Adani Group entities does not substantiate that it is in a dominant position in terms of Section 4 of the Act. Regarding the Informant's other allegations of leveraging, exclusion, creation of entry barriers, bidrigging discrimination etc. no cogent evidence has been produced by the Informant in this regard. As such, there is no clear evidence on record which may establish dominant position or its abuse by OP-2.”

Holding that the power generation market in India comprises several significant public and private players, the Commission said the Adani Group does not appear to be dominant.

It noted that companies such as National Thermal Power Corporation, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Tata Power Co. Ltd., Torrent Power and Reliance Power operate in the sector, alongside renewable energy players like Tata Power, JSW Energy, and Suzlon Energy.

With no prima facie contravention made out, the Commission ordered the case to be closed under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act.