#Section 3(3)(d)

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) held 17 electrical contractors guilty of bid rigging in Assam Police tenders, relying on coordinated bidding patterns, shared IP addresses, and sequentially numbered demand drafts as conclusive evidence of collusion. The ruling reinforces that such circumstantial evidence can establish a Section 3(3)(d) violation without direct proof of agreement, imposing cease-and-desist orders on all parties.

CCI ruled that mere parallel bidding or market dominance does not establish a prima facie cartel under Section 3(3)(d) without concrete evidence of collusion between bidders. The decision clarifies that public procurement allegations require proof of concerted action, not just suspicion of unfair pricing.