CCI closes case alleging cartelisation and abuse of dominance against 4,500 entities

Background and context

The matter titled “Goutam Mohanta Vs Reliance Jio Infocom Limited & Others” arose from an Information lodged under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 before the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

The Informant, Mr. Goutam Mohanta, attempted to rope in more than 4,500 opposite parties spanning a wide range of industries, including:

  • Logistics and freight
  • Telecommunications
  • Government e-Marketplace (GeM) procurement
  • Energy and infrastructure
  • Batteries and energy storage
  • Plywood and engineered wood
  • Cement, steel, and electrical products
  • IT hardware
  • FMCG and consumer goods
  • Education and fertilisers
  • Healthcare and pharmaceuticals
  • Laminates, plastics and pipes
  • Mattresses and staple foods
  • Real estate in eastern and north-eastern India

The Information broadly alleged contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 on account of:

  • Price alignment and parallel pricing
  • Route allocation and market sharing
  • Exclusionary arrangements
  • Market concentration
  • Vertical integration and supply allocation
  • Barriers to entry, particularly affecting MSMEs
  • Bid-rigging and collusive tendering

The Informant sought initiation of investigation under Section 26(1) of the Act, along with various consequential directions, claiming that coordinated and restrictive practices were prevalent across multiple sectors and regions.

The CCI considered the Information at its ordinary meeting held on 24.06.2026, and thereafter passed its order closing the case under Section 26(2) of the Act.

The order primarily examined whether a prima facie case existed for directing the Director General (DG) to investigate under Section 26(1) of the **Competition Act, 2002`. The following provisions were relevant:

  • Section 3: Anti-competitive agreements
  • Section 4: Abuse of dominant position
  • Section 19(1)(a): Power of CCI to inquire on receipt of information
  • Section 26(1): Direction to the DG to cause an investigation, if a prima facie case exists
  • Section 26(2): Closure of information at the prima facie stage where no case is made out

The CCI stressed that before it can direct an investigation, the Information must contain concrete foundational facts, including particulars of conduct, parties involved, period, manner of alleged agreement, and some material or data to support the allegations. Mere suspicion, conjecture or generic statements are insufficient.

Scope of allegations across sectors

Logistics and freight services

The Informant claimed that the logistics ecosystem – particularly relating to:

  • Port-linked transportation
  • Bulk cargo movement
  • Container support services
  • Rail–road interface operations

was characterised by:

  • Price alignment among independent logistics operators
  • Route allocation and tacit market-sharing
  • Exclusionary conduct against smaller operators

It was alleged that operators moving commodities such as cement, clinker, fertilisers and coal were quoting substantially identical freight rates on the same corridors over overlapping time periods, allegedly without any justification in terms of cost structures.

According to the Informant, this amounted to:

  • Cartelisation in terms of Section 3(3)(a) (price-fixing / identical pricing)
  • Market sharing and route allocation under Section 3(3)(b)

The Informant further alleged that:

  • Certain corridors appeared to be segmented among specific clusters of enterprises
  • New or smaller entrants were effectively blocked from accessing loading facilities and terminals
  • Bulk allocations were structured in a manner that excluded or disadvantaged smaller logistics providers

Telecommunications sector