Case No. 11/2013. Case: Anil Gambhir Informant Vs The Union of India. Competition Commision of India

Case NumberCase No. 11/2013
Party NameAnil Gambhir Informant Vs The Union of India
CounselFor Appellant: Shri R. Rajappan, Advocate
JudgesAshok Chawla, Chairman, H.C. Gupta, Member (G), Geeta Gouri, Member (GG), Anurag Goel, Member (AG), M.L. Tayal, Member (T) and Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Member (D)
IssueCompetition Act, 2002 - Sections 26(2), 4
Judgement DateMay 27, 2013
CourtCompetition Commision of India


Order under section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002

  1. The informant is a CPWD Class-II (Civil) Registered Contractor, having his office at New Delhi and is eligible to tender for CPWD works costing up to Rs. 5 crores of any civil nature in the northern region (Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Delhi and UT of Chandigarh only). The informant had been doing the said works in CPWD, local bodies and other organisations. The OP is an agency of the central government operating throughout the country for planning, construction, maintenance and repairs of all works and buildings financed from civil works budget. It carries out the said works through its established divisions by inviting tenders from the registered contractors.

  2. It is stated in the information that the construction and maintenance works were executed by the respective divisions of the OP, depending upon the magnitude of works and the tenders for the same were open to all registered contractors till 2008-09. However, in the year 2009, the Division entrusted with the maintenance work classified the annual repair and maintenance works as a specialised nature of work and issued tender notice only for the specialized agencies or contractors. The informant alleged that the OP reclassified the above said maintenance work as a special category without any logical basis and the works of annual repair and maintenance do not require any special technical expertise or experience.

  3. The informant also alleged that CPWD officers in order to favour certain general category contractors, categorized them as special agencies for annual repair and maintenance works. The said agencies since had worked in the maintenance division for some years and gained experience, got themselves classified as specialized agencies.

  4. The Informant further alleged that OP was the sole authority responsible for construction and maintenance of public works in India and thus, was able to abuse its dominant position by imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions in the purchase of services. The informant alleged that the OP indulged in practice that resulted in denial of market access to him.

  5. It is also alleged that the works of annual repair and maintenance were being awarded only to a few so called specialized contractors. It is revealed from the works awarded by few divisions like S Division, Pushpa Vihar Maintenance Division, Q Division...

To continue reading

Request your trial