Fair trade regulator CCI on Thursday rejected a complaint alleging anti-competitive practices by Adani Group entities, Azure Power, and others in a solar power tender floated by the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI).
The complainant had alleged that Adani Enterprises Ltd, Adani Green Energy Four Ltd, Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, Azure Power India Pvt Ltd, SECI and several state power utilities violated competition norms.
Rejecting the complaint, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), in its order, observed that the country's power generation market comprises many significant public and private players, and that Adani Group, prima facie, does not appear to be a dominant player.
"As such and in view of the fact that power generation market in India is comprised of many significant players viz. National Thermal Power Corporation, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, Tata Power Co Ltd, Torrent Power and Reliance Power etc, the Adani Group, prima facie, does not seem to be a dominant player in the power generation market in India," the CCI said in the order.
The competition watchdog further said that allegations regarding cross-subsidisation, exclusionary practices and entry barriers were not supported by cogent evidence.
The complainant alleged that certain clauses, including the "Green Shoe Option," tariff revisions, and other conditions in solar tenders, restricted competition and effectively excluded smaller players.
The CCI observed that the complainant failed to establish that Adani Group held a dominant position in the relevant market.
Further, the alleged conduct i.e. offering of bribes to government officials to enable SECI to enter into Power Sales Agreements with buying utilities, in turn allowing Adani Green Energy Four to enter into Power Purchase Agreements with SECI, also does not seem to qualify as an abusive conduct (exclusionary or exploitative), within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act, the watchdog said.
With regard to the clause-specific allegations, the regulator observed that the "complainant has not provided any cogent evidence of the request for selection (RfS) documents being designed in a manner that encourages participation of only big players in the market."
It is noted that tender design is made according to the specific requirements of the procurer, the order said.
Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that there is no prima facie case of contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act warranting an investigation into the matter.
Section 3 and 4 pertain to anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position, respectively.
"Therefore, the matter is directed to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act," the regulator said.
Published on April 16, 2026