Exclusivity in public transport routes and fare fixation did not show abuse of dominance under competition law.

Grant of exclusivity to a State transport undertaking for a specified bus route, and the fare structure for pilgrim services, were examined under the Competition Act, 2002. The exclusivity was linked to a government scheme framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the public interest to provide an adequate, economical and coordinated transport service, while the fares were stated to follow the applicable fare notification, including enhanced fares for ghat roads and festival occasions. On that basis, the arrangement was treated as a policy measure and the fare fixation did not disclose a distinct competition injury, so no contravention of Section 4 was made out and no interim restraint under Section 33 was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the grant of exclusivity to the State transport undertaking for operating buses on the specified route and the fare fixation for that route amounted to abuse of dominant position under the Competition Act, 2002.

Analysis: The information challenged both the exclusive operation of buses on the route and the higher fares charged for the pilgrim service. The exclusivity was traced to a governmental scheme framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the public interest for providing an adequate, economical and coordinated transport service. The fares were found to be fixed in accordance with the applicable fare notification, which applied to both nationalized and non-nationalized routes and contemplated enhanced fares for ghat roads and festival occasions. On that material, the arrangement appeared to be a policy measure and the fare structure did not disclose a distinct competition injury.

Conclusion: No contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 was made out, and no interim restraint under Section 33 of the Competition Act, 2002 was warranted.

---