Court Rules Executive Communications Do Not Usurp Competition Commission's Powers; Tender Rejection Remains Within Authority's Jurisdiction
In a significant judgment dated September 30, 2026, the Orissa High Court (Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash) dismissed a writ petition filed by Mr. Bikramananda Mohanty challenging internal communications issued by the Works Department and the Engineer-in-Chief's office aimed at ensuring transparency and preventing cartelization in public tender processes.
The petitioner had sought to quash internal departmental letters dated August 5, 2026, and August 19, 2026, which directed all Tender Inviting Authorities (TIAs) to vigilantly guard against cartelization and bid-rigging, undertake detailed cost analyses where suspicion arises, reject bids when legally permissible, and report serious cases to the Competition Commission of India (CCI). The petitioner contended that these instructions effectively usurped the exclusive jurisdiction of the CCI under the Competition Act, 2002, which mandates that only the Commission can initiate investigations or inquiries into cartelization either on receipt of a reference or suo motu.
The Court, however, held that these letters are merely internal executive instructions designed to streamline departmental functioning and ensure adherence to the objectives of the Competition Act. They do not create any enforceable rights in favor of third-party bidders nor do they override the statutory powers of the CCI. Instead, these communications act as preliminary triggers for administrative vigilance and possible referral to the Commission where prima facie evidence exists.
The judgment elaborated that the Competition Act envisages a self-contained mechanism where the Commission initiates inquiries based on references or suo motu findings. The departmental instructions neither substitute this process nor contravene the Act. The Court further emphasized that the rejection or cancellation of a tender falls squarely within the domain of the Tender Inviting Authority, subject to legal limitations, and such action constitutes a separate cause of action unrelated to the challenge against internal communications.
Notably, the Court observed that the petitioner's challenge appeared to be an attempt to circumvent these anti-cartelization measures, which undermines the core principles of transparency and fair competition in public procurement. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 50,000, directing the amount to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority for the welfare of juveniles.
This ruling reaffirms the integrity of internal administrative measures aimed at curbing anti-competitive practices in government tendering and strengthens the procedural framework supporting the Competition Commission's role without diluting departmental responsibilities.
Bottom Line:
Competition Act, 2002 - Internal departmental communications directing tender authorities to ensure transparency, examine cartelization/bid-rigging, undertake cost analysis, reject bids wherever legally permissible and report serious cases to Competition Commission of India do not usurp powers of CCI - Such executive instructions do not create enforceable rights in favour of third parties and are not liable to be quashed at instance of a bidder - Cancellation/rejection of tender is within domain of Tender Inviting Authority and gives separate cause of action.
Statutory provision(s):
Competition Act, 2002 Sections 2(c), 19, 26, 27
Bikramananda Mohanty v. State of Odisha, (Orissa)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992058
