Broad informant standing and no cartelisation found where algorithmic pricing and platform arrangements lacked collusion or dominance.

The Competition Act, 2002 permits information from any person in public-interest proceedings, and the concept of a "person aggrieved" for appeal is to be read broadly; the informant's appeal against closure was therefore maintainable. On merits, anti-competitive conduct was not established because there was no agreement or meeting of minds, no hub-and-spoke cartel, no price-fixing arrangement, and no resale price maintenance. The algorithmic pricing model and platform arrangements did not by themselves prove a contravention, and dominance of either enterprise was not shown, so the allegations under sections 3 and 4 failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether any person may furnish information to the Competition Commission of India and maintain an appeal against an order closing the matter under the Competition Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the alleged pricing model and platform arrangements of the cab aggregators amounted to cartelisation, price fixing, resale price maintenance, or abuse of dominant position.

Issue (i): Whether any person may furnish information to the Competition Commission of India and maintain an appeal against an order closing the matter under the Competition Act, 2002.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits receipt of information from "any person", the expression "person" being broadly defined. The amended provisions governing inquiry and appeal are framed in public-interest terms and the proceedings are in rem. The regulations also require only a factual statement of contravention, permit participation where there is substantial public interest, and protect informant confidentiality. The concept of "person aggrieved" in the appeal provisions must therefore be read widely in the context of the Act.

Conclusion: The objection to the informant's locus standi failed, and the appeal by the informant was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged pricing model and platform arrangements of the cab aggregators amounted to cartelisation, price fixing, resale price maintenance, or abuse of dominant position.

Analysis: The concurrent findings were that there was no agreement or meeting of minds between the aggregators, no collusion among drivers inter se, and no agreement showing a hub-and-spoke cartel. The dynamic algorithmic pricing mechanism did not establish a fixed price floor or a vertical arrangement to orchestrate price fixing. The allegation of price discrimination also failed because dominance of either enterprise was not established, and collective dominance is not recognised under the Act in this context.

Conclusion: No contravention of sections 3 or 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 was made out, and the findings on merits were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside only on the question of locus standi, but the substantive findings rejecting the competition-law allegations were affirmed, leaving no basis for interference with the closure of the matter.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Competition Act, 2002, information may be furnished by any person in public-interest proceedings, and a closure order may be appealed by such person where the statute so permits; on merits, anti-competitive conduct requires proof of an agreement or meeting of minds, and absent dominance or collusion, algorithmic pricing alone does not establish a contravention.

---