Competition Commission of India closed bid rigging allegations in solar tender involving Adani Group entities. Bench led by Ravneet Kaur found no prima facie violation, ending proceedings under Competition Act.
India’s Competition Commission of India (CCI) has shut down allegations of bid rigging and market abuse involving entities associated with the Adani Group and others in a high-stakes solar power tender. The order was issued by a bench led by Chairperson Ms. Ravneet Kaur, together with Members Mr. Anil Agrawal, Ms. Sweta Kakkad, and Mr. Deepak Anurag.
The bench concluded that there was no prima facie case for contravention of Sections 3 or 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, and accordingly closed the matter under Section 26(2), without conducting an investigation.
It said,
“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.”
Background of the Tender
The dispute was linked to a 2019 tender by the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) seeking 7 GW of ISTS-connected solar PV power, associated with 2 GW of annual solar manufacturing part of India’s strategy to expand domestic renewable capacity.
In June 2019, SECI issued a Request for Selection (Rfs) for solar projects tied to manufacturing plants (Packages A and B). The projects were capped at a tariff of Rs 2.93/kWh for a 25-year period.
Three bidders qualified:
- Adani Green Energy Four Limited (AGEFL, OP-2),
- Azure Power India Private Limited (OP-5), and
- Navayuga Engineering.
After the e-reverse auction process, Letters of Award (LoAs) were issued to AGEFL offering 2 GW of manufacturing capacity and 8 GW of solar capacity and to Azure offering 1 GW of manufacturing capacity and 4 GW of solar capacity at Rs 2.92/kWh.
Allegations by the Informant
Ravi Sharma, the informant, alleged that the RfS process was structured to favor large players. His key concerns included:
- The combined approach of pairing generation with manufacturing allegedly breached Ministry of Power (MoP) guidelines.
- Clauses such as the “Green Shoe Option” and “Transferred Capacity” were said to help ensure awards to major participants.
- Azure’s subsequent surrender of capacity citing issues such as PILs and lender-related constraints was said to redirect capacity toward Adani, raising claims of a “proxy bid” arrangement.
ALSO READ: “Gautam Adani Charged for Securities Fraud Conspiracy”: Adani Green
Sharma further argued that Adani’s position in the private power sector noted as approximately 16%, and allegedly rising when considering thermal exposure could enable anti-competitive conduct through cross-subsidies, infrastructure control, and alleged corrupt practices.
He also pointed to SECI signing Power Supply Agreements (PSAs) with state discoms (OP-7 to OP-12). According to the allegations, Azure’s exits of 1,799 MW (in 2023) and 700 MW (in 2024) shifted loads toward Adani with regulatory approval.
He claimed that Adani-related entities (OP-1 to OP-4) functioned as dominant players by leveraging group synergies, access to capital from Adani Power/Transmission, and alleged strategic control over critical infrastructure, to exclude competitors.
He also invoked:
- Section 3: collusive conduct described as “cover bidding” involving Azure and SECI.
- Section 4: abuse through unfair tender conditions, capacity hoarding, and discriminatory PSAs.
SECI’s Response
SECI described as a MNRE PSU acting as an intermediary under the Electricity Act, 2003 contested the allegations. It argued that:
- The RfS followed a Tariff-Based Competitive Bidding (TBCB) process, with tariffs adopted in line with CERC and PSAs approved by SERCs.
- The tender was floated multiple times (with earlier rounds annulled) to support domestic manufacturing goals, and the “Green Shoe” mechanism was included based on MNRE direction.
- Azure’s voluntary tariff reductions (later lowered to Rs 2.54/kWh) benefited consumers.
- Any surrender of capacity occurred through due process rather than any pre-arranged plan.
- There was no evidence showing coordinated meetings or planned transfers to support claims of collusion.
SECI also emphasized that the procurer’s ability to define tender terms and technical requirements should be treated as legitimate.
CCI’s findings
The CCI rejected the attempt to frame the matter as dominance-based abuse in the power generation market. It noted that India’s power generation landscape includes coal, solar, wind, and hydro, with major players such as NTPC, Power Grid, Tata Power, Torrent, Reliance, JSW Energy, and Suzlon.
It said,
“Stipulating capacity generation and financial eligibility criteria in tenders is a standard practice, and the same cannot be faulted… merely because the market may be having a large number of smaller players as well.”
On the question of dominance, the CCI stated that Adani did not appear to hold a dominant position, and it found no substantiated evidence supporting the allegations. In particular, it treated tender conditions such as capacity-generation and eligibility criteria as standard, non-exclusionary features that cannot automatically be treated as anti-competitive merely because the market includes smaller players.
It Said,
“The Adani Group, prima facie, does not seem to be a dominant player in the power generation market in India.”
The CCI also found that claims regarding alleged collusion, proxy bidding, or bribery-related conduct were not supported by the required evidence in a way that would establish a prima facie case under the Competition Act provisions being invoked.
The court also said,
“A procurer, as a consumer, can stipulate certain technical specifications/ conditions/ clauses in the tender document as per its requirements which by themselves cannot be deemed anticompetitive.”
The court found no clear evidence on record which may establish dominant position or its abuse by OP-2 Adani Green Energy Four Limited.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE