CCI Dismisses Allegations of Restrictive Bidding in a Swimming Pool Tender Due to Lack of Evidence of Anti-Competitive Conduct

Case Details: Vinish Khanna, In re - [2025] 172 taxmann.com 720 (CCI)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Ms Ravneet Kaur, Chairperson, Anil Agrawal & Deepak Anurag, Member

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, OP3, a division of the Public Works Department, had invited tenders for the construction of a swimming pool. The Informant, a director in one of bidders for this tender, filed information alleging that OP3, while inviting tender, had contravened provisions of the Act by imposing certain restrictive conditions which required a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to be entered into by potential bidder and OP1, a company engaged in business of making stainless steel pools, to become technically eligible for impugned tender.

The Informant alleged that there appeared to be an anti-competitive agreement in contravention of Section 3 between OP1 and OP3, due to which the material and technology of OP1 were a prerequisite for carrying out the work under the impugned tender.

It was further alleged that OP3 had abused its dominant position in favour of OP1, in contravention of Section 4, by imposing restrictive tender conditions in the impugned tender, thereby making it a limited tender disguised as an open tender.

It was noted that every State had a Public Works Department (PWD) and that they might have floated tenders for the construction of swimming pools for their respective district, cities or areas on a need basis. There may be various procurers for such services; therefore, OP3 did not appear to be dominant within the relevant market for the procurement of services for swimming pool construction in India.

CCI Held

The CCI observed that OP3 had given all prospective bidders the opportunity to compete and had not favoured any single company. Furthermore, all companies with similar specifications and work done, as well as technology and materials for building swimming pools sourced from OP1 or agencies with similar technology, were eligible to compete in the tender process.

The CCI held that there was no material available on record to substantiate allegations of anti-competitive conduct by OP3 in contravention of provisions of section 3 or abuse of dominance in contravention of section 4 of the Act. Therefore, information was to be closed forthwith in terms of provisions contained in section 26(2) of the Act.