Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) Yash Solutions, Bareilly (Unit of Yash Ornaments Pvt. Ltd.) ("Yash Solutions"/OP-1) Competition Appeal (AT) No. 32 of 2022
(ii) M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal, Bareilly ("M/s Satish Kumar"/OP-2)
(iii) M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons, Bareilly ("M/s Siddhi Vinayak"/OP-3)
(iv) M/s Saraswati Sales Corporation, Bareilly ("M/s Saraswati Sales"/OP-4)
(v) Austere System Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi ("Austere Systems"/OP-5)

5. It was further alleged that there were numerous red flags in the documents submitted by the aforesaid entities for Tender No. 1 and Tender No. 2, but the tender inviting authorities preferred to ignore these aspects. Yash Solutions emerged as the successful bidder for the award of work for Tender No. 1 and Tender No.2 for the regions Moradabad and Bareilly, respectively, in the year 2018-19. It was also stated in the complaint, that in the previous year, i.e., 2017-18, Yash Solutions was awarded tender for soil testing for the regions of Bareilly and Moradabad, and Austere Systems was awarded tenders for the regions of Jhansi, Saharanpur and Meerut as a result of such collusive bidding. It was alleged in the complaint that the entities referred above, rigged the tenders of soil testing in the state of Uttar Pradesh by indulging in cover bidding, bid rotation and collusive bidding.

11. The commission after careful perusal of the investigation report, the objections/suggestions thereto received from OPs and the submissions made by the OPs during the hearing on 16.12.2021 framed two issues, these are as follows:

"Issue 1: Whether the Opposite Parties have directly or indirectly rigged/ manipulated the tenders of soil testing issued by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh, in various regions for the year 2017 and 2018, by indulging in bid rigging, collusive bidding and sharing of market, resulting in contravention of provisions of Section 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act.

44. The Counsel for the Appellant submitted that he is aggrieved by impugned order dated 4.4.2022 passed by Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as 'CCT'), where by CCI erroneously held the Appellant in contravention of the provision of Section 3(2)(c) and 3(3)(d) of the Competition Commission Act ("Act") for collusive bid rigging with the highest bidder Austere Systems Pvt Limited.

45. The counsel further stated that there was No evidence of meeting of minds between Appellant and Austere at the time of submission of bids in 2018. There was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, before the CCI that an agreement was entered into between such enterprises, persons or their associations engaged in identical or similar trade in respect of the prohibited activity which resulted in bid rigging or collusive bidding. Competition Appeal (AT) No. 32 of 2022

46. CCI relied only of the fact that there was business relationship existed between the Appellant and Austere in the year 2017, whereby Austere had sub contracted the work of soil testing to the Appellant.

47. It is submitted that a routine affair and meeting of minds for purposes of bid rigging/ collusive bidding could not be inferred from such proximity. Having business links in past is no evidence to suggest that these parties were engaged in bid rigging. Reliance is place on Competition Appeal (AT) No. 09 of 2019 Reprographic India Vs. Competition Commission of India and Ors. Following allegations does not fall under the preview of CCI: