Case No. 27 of 2025, Swam Kartik Sharma v. Airports Authority of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Delhi International Airport Limited

Background

An information was filed against Airports Authority of India (‘AAI’), Ministry of Civil Aviation (‘MoCA’), and Delhi International Airport Limited (‘DIAL’) (collectively, the ‘Opposite Parties’), alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The informant, who was part of a company engaged in the provision of security services in Delhi and other states of India, had alleged that DIAL (which is owned by GMR Airports Limited (‘GMR’)) has abused its dominant position by selectively awarding security services contracts at Indira Gandhi International Airport (‘IGIA’), Delhi to M/s RAXA Security Services Limited (‘RAXA’), a subsidiary of GMR, without adhering to a competitive bidding process, thereby creating a monopolistic environment and stifling market entry for other contractors. The Informant had specifically alleged contravention of Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i), 4(2)(c), and 4(2)(e) of the Act, and had prayed for an investigation into the matter. DIAL, in its response had submitted that the contract for deployment of Private Security Agency (‘PSA’) for non-core security functions at IGIA was awarded to RAXA pursuant to a publicly issued and competitively conducted tender process, in full compliance with the Operation, Management and Development Agreement (‘OMDA’) and applicable laws, and that the informant’s companies neither participated in the concerned tender nor possessed a valid PSA license at the material time.

CCI Findings

The CCI noted that the primary grievance of the informant emanates from the tendering process followed by DIAL in awarding the contract for security services at IGIA to RAXA, a subsidiary of GMR. In a catena of cases, the CCI had opined that the procurer must have freedom to exercise its choice freely in the procurement of goods and services following the law of the land. Therefore, the CCI deems it appropriate not to interfere with the commercial decisions made by entities in the normal course of business unless they raise any anti-competitive concern. The CCI further noted that the informant has not furnished any substantive material to delineate the relevant market or to demonstrate the abuse of dominance by DIAL within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act.

With respect to DIAL’s submissions, DIAL had demonstrated that for all tenders undertaken by it in 2007, 2014, 2020, 2022, and 2025, a competitive bidding process was followed in full compliance with the OMDA and applicable laws, and contracts were awarded on an arms-length basis. With respect to the 2025 tender for deployment of PSA for non-core security functions, thirteen entities showed interest and three interested parties submitted their bids, two were qualified for technical evaluation, and RAXA, being the lowest bidder, was awarded the contract. The CCI has also perused Article 8.5.7(i)(d) read with Article 8.5.7(i)(f) of the OMDA, which contemplated the entering of contracts with group entities subject to safeguards including AAI oversight, the requirement of Board of Directors (‘BOD’) approval, and the appointment of an independent probity auditor under Schedule 12 of the OMDA. Upon perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the BOD, the report of the independent probity auditor, and the resolution, the CCI was of the view that the tender was awarded in compliance with the provisions of the OMDA and on an arms-length basis. As regards the alleged contravention of Section 3 of the Act, the CCI noted that the informant has placed nothing on record to indicate bid-rigging or collusive bidding. Thus, the CCI directed that the matter be closed under the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act.