Case No. 13 of 2026, Goutam Mohanta v. Reliance Jio Infocom Limited and Others

Background

An information had been filed against Reliance Jio Infocom Limited and more than 4,500 entities operating across various sectors of the economy, inter alia alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The informant had raised allegations of anti-competitive practices spanning multiple sectors, including logistics, telecommunications, Government-e-Marketplace (‘GeM’) procurement, energy and infrastructure, batteries and energy storage, plywood and engineered wood products, cement, steel and electrical products, information technology hardware, Fast Moving Consumer Goods (‘FMCG’), education, fertilisers, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, laminates, plastic and pipes, mattresses, staple foods, and real estate in the eastern and north-eastern regions of India. In the logistics sector, the informant had alleged the existence of coordinated conduct, including price alignment, route allocation, and exclusionary arrangements restricting free and fair competition in freight movement, port evacuation, industrial distribution corridors, and supply-chain logistics, in contravention of Sections 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) of the Act. With respect to the telecom sector, the informant had alleged sustained similarity in tariff architecture, validity structuring, data segmentation, and recharge denomination clustering within a concentrated market, warranting examination under Sections 3(1) and 3(4) of the Act. Regarding GeM procurement, the informant had alleged contravention of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act, citing concentration of procurement awards among a limited cluster of vendors with limited price variation and recurring participation by the same set of enterprises.

CCI Findings

The CCI observed that the information referred to standardised pricing behaviour, route allocation arrangements, and barriers to entry in the logistics sector, although it failed to identify the precise role of any opposite party, the period of alleged conduct, or the manner of implementation of any agreement or understanding. Furthermore, no freight quotations, invoices, bid documents, rate charts, or other contemporaneous evidence was placed on record. Additionally, in the telecom sector the informant’s allegations were solely based upon a comparative assessment of publicly available recharge plans and did not disclose any evidence of coordinated action or a meeting of minds amongst the opposite parties and accordingly held that the mere existence of parallel or similar pricing in an oligopolistic market cannot, by itself, be prima facie indicative of prohibited conduct under Section 3 of the Act.

The informant had neither identified the specific enterprises involved in the alleged bid-rigging arrangement nor furnished any material indicating coordination, exchange of information, bid rotation, or other conduct falling within the ambit of Section 3(3)(d) of the Act, and held that mere assertions regarding award concentration, pricing similarity, or recurring vendor participation, without supporting evidence and in the absence of specific instances of anti-competitive conduct, are insufficient to warrant an investigation under Section 26(1) of the Act.  Further, across all remaining sectors including energy, cement, steel, FMCG, healthcare, real estate, and others, the informant raised only broad, generic allegations concerning market concentration, parallel pricing, and vertical integration without disclosing any specific allegation against any identified opposite party, attributing any precise role, or specifying the nature, manner, period, or circumstances of the alleged conduct, and held that in the absence of cogent material or contemporaneous evidence, invoking the CCI’s jurisdiction would result in a roving and fishing inquiry.