Competition Commission Dismisses Allegations of Bid Rigging In Bareilly Nagar Nigam Tender

The Competition Commission of India presided by Mr. Ravneet Kaur, Mr. Anil Agrawal, Ms. Shweta Kakkad and Mr. Deepak Anurag rejected allegations of anti-competitive practices in the tender process of Bareilly Nagar Nigam and found no merit in the bid rigging complaint. Brief Facts of the Case The informant, Mr. Harish Kumar, is engaged in the business of advertisement and publicity. He alleged bid rigging and anti-competitive practices in a tender floated by Bareilly Nagar Nigam (OP-4) for allotting advertising spaces. Bareilly Nagar Nigam initially set a turnover requirement of Rs. 20 crores for participation. The informant claimed this criterion was manipulated to favour certain firms. Bareilly Nagar Nigam later reduced the turnover requirement to Rs. 9.5 crores without proper public notice. The informant also alleged that OP-1 and OP-2, associated with OP-3, were given irregular registration. He claimed these firms were dummy entities created to restrict competition. According to him, Bareilly Nagar Nigam's officials colluded with the firms and awarded the tender to OP-3 in a non-transparent manner. Contentions of Bareilly Nagar Nigam The Bareilly Nagar Nigam denied the allegations and that the tender process followed proper rules and regulations. All firms meeting the eligibility criteria were allowed to participate. It claimed the turnover requirement was reduced to Rs. 9.5 crores to encourage competition. It further explained that registration delays occurred due to internal processes and Municipal Commissioner approval. It emphasized that all eligible firms were registered before the e-tender closing date. It denied any connection between OP-1, OP-2, and OP-3 and rejected claims of collusion. It was stated that the tender conditions were transparent and accessible on its website. Observation by the Commission The Commission held that the tendering process and reduced turnover limit was at the discretion of the procurer. It could not be established, from the materials placed on record, that Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002 had been contravened through anti-competitive practices or even collusion. The Commission noted that it could not establish any credibility of evidence of OP-1, OP-2, and OP-3 being dummy firms or process manipulation.The Commission observed that tender terms setting is usually the procurer's prerogative and not something that would be interfered with unless there is evident anti-competitive conduct. From the above, the Commission found that no prima facie case was established. It closed the case under Section 26(2) of the Act and dismissed the interim relief sought by the informant. Case Name: Harish Kumar Vs. M/s S B Telecommunication & Ors. Case No: 38 of 2023 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Competition Commission Dismisses Allegations of Bid Rigging In Bareilly Nagar Nigam Tender

Ayushi Rani

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ayushi Rani

Competition Commission Dismisses Allegations of Bid Rigging In Bareilly Nagar Nigam Tender

Ayushi Rani

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ayushi Rani

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers