SC: Clarificatory Statement Does Not Constitute a Binding Undertaking for Contempt Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court: Litigant Cannot be Worse Off for Filing an Appeal under ‘No Reformatio in Peius’  ||  Orissa HC: Article 22(1) Arrest Rights Pre-Exist, Written Grounds Ruling Not Prospective  ||  Kerala HC: Kissing a Child’s Penis Constitutes Penetrative Sexual Assault under POCSO  ||  Madras HC: Married Daughter Cannot be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely for Her Marriage  ||  Bombay High Court: Child Welfare Prevails as ‘Joint Parenting’ is Not Recognised in Indian Law  ||  Kerala HC: Minor’s Consent or Relationship with Accused Holds No Relevance under POCSO Act  ||  Bombay HC: Failure to Prove Exact Quantum of Loss Does Not Bar Compensation  ||  CCPA Fines Dial4Trade Rs. 10 Lakh for Online Ammonium Nitrate Listing Featuring Blast Images  ||  Supreme Court: Multiple Cases Alone Cannot Justify an Externment Order    

Kailash Chander Sharma v Coal India Limited and ors. - (Competition Commission of India) (14 Jul 2016)

Coal India free to exercise ‘consumer choice’ in tender

MRTP/ Competition Laws

The Competition Commission of India dismissed a complaint alleging abuse of market position against Coal India Limited, holding that Coal India had ‘consumer choice’ and was free to choose between competing products and services.

The complaint was received from an entity empanelled with CIL for providing technical and scientific services with regard to coal samples. It alleged that by changing its tender requirements for bidders for scientific and technical services in collection, preparation and transportation of coal samples, Coal India had shown preference for certain bidders over others, and being the dominant entity in the field it was abusing its market position.

Coal India’s initial tender for the services had limited bidders to those with an annual turnover of Rs. 25 crores - while the revised requirements reduced it to Rs. 20 crores and specified that prospective budders would have to submit a certificate of solvency and deposit Rs. 1 crore with the tender document. It was alleged that the Ministry of Coal and Power had not instructed Coal India to include such onerous conditions.

The Commission rejected the complaint noting that no barriers to entry had been created by the pre-qualification conditions, and the lowered turnover requirement did not bar Indian firms. The requirement of pre-deposit with tender documents could also not be called abusive. It reiterated, “a consumer of services must be allowed to exercise its consumer choice and freely select between competing products or services.” The Commission, however, remained silent on the potential incongruence between tender requirements set by Coal India and those prescribed by the coal ministry.

Tags : COAL INDIA   TENDER   SCIENTIFIC   SAMPLES   CONSUMER   FREEDOM TO CHOOSE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved