Lok Sabha Question No. 2576 (UNSTARRED), answered on 2018-01-03
Subject: Complaints against Telecom Companies
Ministry: COMMUNICATIONS
Asked by: K. GOPAL

## GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS

## LOK  SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 2576 TO BE ANSWERED ON  3 RD  JANUARY, 2018

## COMPLAINTS AGAINST TELECOM COMPANIES

2576. DR. K. GOPAL:

Will the Minister of COMMUNICATIONS be pleased to state:

- (a) whether the  Competition  Commission  of  India  (CCI)  has  decided  to  conduct  a detailed investigation into charges of cartelization by telecom companies;
- (b) if so, the details thereof;
- (c) whether the CCI has also received complaints against some telecom companies for predatory pricing and anticompetitive behaviour; and
- (d) if so, the details thereof?

## ANSWER

## THE MINISTER OF STATE (IC) OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (SHRI MANOJ SINHA)

- (a) & (b) The Competition Commission of India (CCI) received the following three complaints alleging cartelization by the telecom companies:
- (i)  81/2016;  Mr  CA  Ranjana  Sardana  vs  Cellular  Operators  Association  of India (COAI) and Others.
- (ii)  83/2016; Mr Kantilal Ambala Puj vs Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) and Others.
- (iii)  95/2016; Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd vs Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) and Others.

The  Commission,  having  prima  facie  satisfied  itself  about  the  allegations  of cartelization by telecom companies, had ordered Director General, CCI for investigation into the matter under Section 26 (1) of the Competition Act, 2002 vide a common Order dated 21.04.2017.

The order dated 21.04.2017 of the Commission was challenged in Bombay High Court through a Writ Petition. The Hon'ble High Court vide their Order dated 21.09.2017 set it aside. CCI has preferred Special Leave Petition against the order of Bombay High Court in the Supreme Court.

(c) & (d) The CCI has received nine (9) more cases [including one Monopolies and Restrictive  Trade  Practices  (MRTP)  Case]  against  some  telecom  companies  alleging predatory  pricing  and  anti-competitive  behavior  which  have  been  disposed  of  by  the Commission  under  section  26  (2)  of  the  Competition  Act,  2002  at  prima  facie  stage without further investigation into allegations or under section 26 (6) after investigating into the allegations.

Following  two  (2)  complaints  alleging  predatory  pricing  against  Reliance  Jio  on account of it offering free telecom services to customers were also received which have been disposed of finally under section 26 (2):

- (i)  98/2016;  Mr  C.Shanmugam  and  Others  vs  Reliance  Jio  Infocomm  Ltd.  closed under section 26 (2) vide order dated.15.06.2017
- (ii)  03/2017;  Bharti  Airtel  vs  Reliance  Industries  Ltd  and  Others;  Closed  under section 26 (2) vide order dated 09.06.2017.

The  Commission  closed  above  two  cases  as  Reliance  Jio  was  not  found dominant in the market for provision of wireless telecommunication services.

Following seven (7) complaints having allegation of anti-competitive behaviour were received and were finally disposed of by the Commission under sections indicated in each case:

- a)  63/2010;  Mr.  Anuj  Kumar  Bhati  vs.  Sony  Entertainment  Television  and Others; Closed under section 26 (2) vide order dated 29.03.2011.
- b)  24/2011; Mr. Sonam Sharma vs. Apple Inc. USA and Others; Closed under section 26 (6) vide order dated 19.03.2013.
- c)  55/2013; Mr. M.K. Shrivastava, BSNL vs. M/s. Bharati Airtel Ltd. and Others; Closed under section 26 (2) vide order dated 16.01.2014.
- d)  29/2014; Telecommunication Users Group of India vs. United Telecoms Ltd (UTL) and Others; Closed under section 26 (2) vide order dated 03.09.2014.
- e)  79/2014;  Mr.  Babit  Singh  Jamwal  vs.  Paras  Buildtech  India  Pvt.  Ltd.  and Others; Closed under section 26 (2) vide order dated 29.01.2015.
- f) Mr. Vishwambhar M Doiphode vs. M/s. Vodafone India Limited; Closed under section 26 (2) vide order dated 05.05.2016.
- g)  MRTP Case No.C-125/2009 (DGIR/22/28); Mr. Achintya Mukherjee vs. Loop Telecom  Ltd.  and  Others;  Closed  under  section  26  (2)  vide  order  dated 20.01.2011.

********