New Delhi, April 16 (NationPress) The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has cleared Adani Enterprises and Adani Green Energy of any wrongdoing in the SECI tender case, determining that there is no prima facie evidence of violating fair market competition laws that would necessitate an investigation.

In its ruling, the Commission stated, "After reviewing the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, it is the Commission's opinion that there is no prima facie case of breaching Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act that would justify further inquiry into the issue. Thus, the matter is to be closed immediately under Section 26(2) of the Act."

Addressing claims of the Adani Group's abuse of a dominant position, the Commission observed that power generation in India relies on various sources, including coal, solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear energy.

It also highlighted that both private and public sector companies participate in the power generation sector.

The Commission noted that the Informant failed to provide evidence to justify why solar power or the public and private power generation sectors should be viewed as separate markets.

Furthermore, it mentioned that the Indian power generation market features numerous significant players, including the National Thermal Power Corporation, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Tata Power Co. Ltd., Torrent Power, and Reliance Power. Therefore, the Adani Group does not seem to be a dominant player within this market.

Even in the renewable energy sector, other notable competitors such as Tata Power, JSW Energy, and Suzlon Energy are operating, as the Commission pointed out.

The Commission concluded that allegations regarding benefits from cross-subsidisation and economies of scale from other Adani Group entities do not prove dominance under Section 4 of the Act.

Regarding additional allegations, including leveraging, exclusion, creation of entry barriers, bid rigging, and discrimination, the Commission indicated that no substantial evidence was presented by the Informant.

Concerning clause-specific allegations, the Commission noted the absence of evidence indicating that the Request for Selection (RfS) documents were tailored to favor only larger entities.

It explained that tender design adheres to the specific needs of the procurer.

The Commission further stated that establishing capacity generation and financial eligibility criteria in tenders is standard practice and cannot be criticized simply because the market includes many smaller players.

Thus, under the Act's provisions, the clauses in the RfS cannot be interpreted as intentionally excluding competition.