CCI dismisses anti-competition allegations in SECI solar tender, clears Adani Group

India’s fair trade regulator, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), has dismissed allegations of anti-competitive practices in a major solar power tender floated by the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI), providing relief to companies including Adani Group and Azure Power.

In an order issued on Thursday, the watchdog rejected a complaint that had accused Adani Enterprises Ltd, Adani Green Energy, Azure Power India Pvt Ltd, and several state utilities of violating competition norms in the award of solar projects. The complaint also named industrialist Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani.

The regulator found no prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, noting that India’s power generation sector is populated by multiple large public and private players. It specifically cited companies such as NTPC Limited, Power Grid Corporation of India, Tata Power, Torrent Power and Reliance Power to underline that the Adani Group does not appear to hold a dominant position in the market.

“The Adani Group, prima facie, does not seem to be a dominant player in the power generation market in India,” the CCI said, rejecting the basis for claims of abuse of dominance.

The complainant had raised concerns over certain tender clauses — such as the “Green Shoe Option,” tariff revisions, and other conditions — arguing that they created entry barriers and disadvantaged smaller firms. However, the Commission found that these allegations were not backed by substantive evidence.

The regulator also dismissed claims of cross-subsidisation, exclusionary conduct, and even allegations of bribery linked to the execution of power sale and purchase agreements, stating that such conduct did not meet the threshold of abusive practices under Section 4 of the Competition Act.

On the issue of tender design, the CCI said there was no proof that the request for selection (RfS) documents were structured to favour large players. It emphasised that tender conditions are typically tailored to the specific requirements of the procuring entity.

Concluding that there was no prima facie violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act — dealing with anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position — the Commission ordered the case to be closed under Section 26(2) of the Act.