CCI Closes Anti-Competitive Allegations Against Delhi International Airport Limited in Security Services Tender Dispute

Case Overview

Case: Swam Kartik Sharma Vs Airports Authority of India (Competition Commission of India)

The Competition Commission of India examined allegations of abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive conduct against the Airports Authority of India (AAI), the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA), and Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) in connection with the award of security services contracts at Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGIA). The matter was instituted under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, with the Informant — a Director of a security services firm — contending that DIAL had bypassed fair competitive processes while awarding contracts to a GMR group entity, namely RAXA Security Services Limited.

After detailed examination of the tender records, regulatory framework under the Operation, Management and Development Agreement (OMDA), and other supporting documents, the Commission concluded that no contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 was made out, and accordingly directed closure of the matter under Section 26(2).

Background and Material Facts

The Informant, serving as Director of M/s Galaxy Security and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd., a firm engaged in security services across Delhi and other states, alleged that DIAL had consistently awarded security service contracts at IGIA to RAXA Security Services Limited — a company in which GMR Airports Infrastructure Limited holds nearly 100% shareholding — without adhering to any genuine competitive bidding process.

The IGIA is operated under a 30-year OMDA executed between GMR group and the Government of India through MoCA, extendable by a further 30 years. DIAL itself is a joint consortium of GMR and AAI, with GMR as the majority shareholder.

On 19.02.2025, the Informant communicated to DIAL, raising concerns in the following terms:

"It has come to my attention that DIAL, under the public-private partnership with the Airport of India, has assign security contracts to RAXA, Security Agency, which is owned and governed by the GMR Group, without issuing a public tender. The practice seems to be in violation of the General Financial Rules (GFR), which mandate that contracts should be open to all parties through a transparent tendering process…."

In its reply dated 24.02.2025, DIAL responded:

"Please be informed that the appointment of Raxa Private Security Contract (PSA) was pursuant to a proper tender process following publication of tender notice in Times of India, Navbharat on April 27, 2022. The same is in pursuance of mandate in Operation, Management Agreement executed by Delhi International Airport Limited with Airport Authority of India for operation, management and development of Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi…. Further the requirements of GFR referred by you do not apply to Delhi International Airport limited being a pvt. Entity"

Dissatisfied with this response, the Informant filed the present Information before the Commission.

Allegations Raised by the Informant

The Informant levelled several specific allegations against DIAL, primarily centering on the repeated award of security contracts to RAXA, which the Informant characterised as a group entity of GMR operating under DIAL's significant influence:

  • **Contravention of Section 4(2)(a)(i)😗* DIAL was alleged to have created a monopolistic environment by imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions through selective award of contracts, enabling it to function without competitive discipline.

  • **Contravention of Section 4(2)(b)(i)😗* DIAL was accused of limiting or restricting the provision of security services within the Delhi airport market, thereby excluding independent contractors like the Informant.

  • **Contravention of Section 4(2)(c)😗* It was alleged that DIAL leveraged its dominant position to deny market access to competing security service providers by awarding contracts exclusively to GMR-controlled entities.

  • **Contravention of Section 4(2)(e)😗* DIAL was alleged to have used its upstream dominance to engage in exclusionary practices that restricted downstream service provision.

  • **Contravention of Section 3😗* Though not elaborated upon in detail, the Informant also alleged the existence of anti-competitive agreements, implying bid-rigging or collusive arrangements.

Key OMDA Provisions Invoked by the Informant

The Informant relied on the following provisions of the OMDA to support its contentions: