Competition Commission of India Unknown vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 3 March, 2025 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Case No. 25 of 2024 In Re: XYZ (Confidential) Informant And Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Opposite Party No. 1 B15, Institutional Area, Sector 62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201307. RailTel Corporation of India Ltd. Opposite Party No. 2 Plate A, 6th Floor, Office Tower 2, NBCC Building, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi 110023 CORAM Ms. Ravneet Kaur Chairperson Mr. Anil Agrawal Member Ms. Sweta Kakkad Member Mr. Deepak Anurag Member Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 1. The present Information has been filed by XYZ ("Informant") under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ("Act") before the Competition Commission of India ("CCI"/ "Commission"), alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Act by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti ("Opposite Party No. 1"/ "OP1"/ "NVS") Case No. 25 of 2024 Page 1 of 8 and RailTel Corporation of India Ltd. ("Opposite Party No. 2"/ "OP2"/ "RailTel") (collectively referred to as "OPs"/ "Opposite Parties"). 2. The Informant has sought confidentiality over its identity as per Section 57 read with Regulation 35 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009. 3. As per the Informant, OP1 is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Education engaged in furthering the objectives of the Prime Minister Schools for Rising India ("PM SHRI") scheme ("the Scheme") through establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya ("JNV") schools across India. As stated, OP2 is a MiniRatna CategoryI Public Sector Undertaking ("PSU") engaged in the business of providing telecom infrastructures. 4. The Informant has stated that, OP2 obtained a Work Order dated 24.01.2024 from OP 1 for 'Supply & Implementation of Integrated Infrastructure & IT solutions under PM SHRI Scheme in JNVs Schools' for an amount of Rs. 162.73/ crores (Rupees One Hundred Sixty Two Crores and Seventy Three Lakhs Only). Thereafter, OP2 floated Tender No. RailTel/RFP/COMKTG/EB/IT/NVS/PMC/202324 dated 01.12.2023 namely Request for Proposal ("RFP") for Selection of partner for supply & implementation of Integrated Infrastructure & IT solutions at multiple locations pursuant to the abovementioned Work Order. The Informant has alleged that this RFP was designed to oust a majority of bidders by way of having stringent and arbitrary technical specifications that did not correspond to industry standards and resulting in a tacit agreement between the Opposite Parties, thereby violating the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. 5. It is alleged that both OP1 and OP2 have abused their dominant position in the market by acting in an opaque and arbitrary manner. As per the Informant, the selection of OP 2 by OP1 was not done through a fair and transparent process. Instead, without any due reason assigned for the same, the Work Order was given to OP2, despite it having no prior expertise or any relation with the PM SHRI Scheme. This is also stated to be Case No. 25 of 2024 Page 2 of 8 evidenced by the fact that, as per the description provided on the official website of OP 2, it is mainly engaged in the business of modernizing the existing telecom system for train control, operation and safety, creation of nationwide broadband and multimedia network and laying optical fiber cable using the right way along railway tracks. 6. As per the Information, OP1 without any due procedure and consideration of relevancy, appointed OP2 as the Project Management Consultant ("PMC") for implementation of the work of Supply & Implementation of Integrated Infrastructure & IT solutions under PM SHRI Scheme in JNVs Schools. OP1 has not provided any reasonable justifications as to why OP2 was selected to carry out the said Work Order. This has been stated to be in violation of the provisions of Section 4(2)(b)(i) of the Act. 7. The Informant has alleged that OP2 has abused its dominance by publishing the RFP with certain technical specifications resulting into disqualification of potential bidders from participation in the bidding process. OP2 proceeded with the bidding process in an opaque and secretive manner whereby no details have been provid