Abuse of dominance claims fail where airport charges are uniform and contracts are awarded through competitive bidding.

Allegations of abuse of dominance under Section 4 were found insufficient at the prima facie stage because the challenged 13% fee was a uniform continuation of earlier airport charges, with no evidence of unfair discrimination, exorbitance, or speculative monopolistic effect. The parking and lounge contract awards were also not shown to involve selective favouritism, market foreclosure, or exclusionary conduct, as the material indicated competitive bidding and selection under the governing concession framework. The information was therefore closed at the prima facie stage, interim relief was declined, and confidentiality was granted for specified material for the stated period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the allegations of creation of a monopolistic environment and levy of 13% fee disclosed a prima facie contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the award of parking and lounge contracts was vitiated by selective favouritism, denial of market access, or exclusionary conduct under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the allegations of creation of a monopolistic environment and levy of 13% fee disclosed a prima facie contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

Analysis: The allegations regarding future monopolistic consequences were general and unsupported by evidence. The 13% fee was found to be a continuation of the charges earlier levied by the statutory airport authority and was applied uniformly to all service providers without any demonstrated increase or discriminatory treatment. On the material placed, no unfair condition, exorbitant charge, or speculative abuse was established at the prima facie stage.

Conclusion: No prima facie contravention was made out on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the award of parking and lounge contracts was vitiated by selective favouritism, denial of market access, or exclusionary conduct under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

Analysis: The relevant contractual framework permitted subcontracting and association with entities created for airport services. The material showed that parking and lounge contracts were awarded through competitive bidding, with multiple participants, and that the selected entities were chosen after evaluation under the applicable concession framework. The allegations of manipulation, related-party favouritism, and denial of market access were found to rest on misplaced facts and were not substantiated.

Conclusion: The allegations concerning parking and lounge contracts did not disclose a prima facie case of abuse of dominance.

Final Conclusion: The information was closed at the prima facie stage and interim relief was declined, with confidentiality granted in respect of specified material for the period indicated in the order.

Ratio Decidendi: A prima facie case of abuse of dominance is not made out where challenged charges are shown to be uniform and continuing from the earlier regime, and where the impugned contracts are awarded through a competitive bidding process under the governing concession framework.

---