CCI clears DIAL of abuse of dominance in Delhi airport security contracts

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed a complaint alleging that Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL) abused its dominant position by favouring a group company in awarding security service contracts at the Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGIA).

In an order dated July 16, the regulator said it found no evidence that DIAL had violated competition law in awarding contracts to RAXA Security Services, a subsidiary of GMR Airports Ltd, after examining the airport operator's procurement process.

The complaint, filed by Swam Kartik Sharma, director of Galaxy Security and Allied Services Pvt Ltd, alleged that DIAL had denied market access to other security service providers by repeatedly awarding contracts to RAXA without a fair competitive bidding process.

It also accused DIAL of leveraging its dominant position and creating a “monopolistic environment” in the airport security services market.

However, in an order dated July 16, the regulator closed the matter and rejected the plea for interim relief.

The CCI observed that the material on record showed RAXA was awarded the contracts "after adhering to competitive bidding process" and said the allegations of abuse of dominance were not borne out.

According to the order, DIAL submitted that tenders for airport security services were floated in 2007, 2014, 2020, 2022 and 2025, with RAXA emerging as the lowest bidder in the relevant tenders after technical and financial evaluation.

The regulator noted that the procurement process included publication of tender notices, technical evaluation, opening of financial bids and oversight by an independent probity auditor.

"The allegations raised regarding contravention of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act are not established," the commission said.

On the charge that DIAL had favoured a related party, the watchdog referred to provisions of the Operation, Management and Development Agreement (OMDA), which permit contracts with group entities subject to safeguards such as approval by DIAL's board, oversight by AAI and review by an independent probity auditor.

After examining the board resolution and the auditor's report, the commission said it was "of the view that the tender was awarded in compliance with the provisions of OMDA and was awarded on arms-length basis".

"The procurer must have freedom to exercise its choice freely in the procurement of goods and services following the law of the land," the commission said, adding that it would not interfere with commercial decisions unless they raised any anti-competition concerns.

The regulator said the informant had placed "nothing on record to indicate bid-rigging/collusive bidding", and therefore "the question of contravention of Section 3 of the Act does not arise".