On July 9, 2018, CCI directed an investigation into the complaint filed by Starlight Bruchem Limited against four licensees (‘OPs 1-4’) of wholesale liquor in the state of Uttar Pradesh (‘UP’) and the Government of Uttar Pradesh, alleging contravention of several provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act[1]. The informant alleged that OPs 1-4 limited and controlled the market of country liquor by sourcing their purchases only from certain manufacturers to the exclusion of others thereby resulting in violation of Section 3(3) of the Competition Act. Further, OP 1-4 belong to the same parent entity i.e. OP-5 and therefore, OP-5 being the exclusive wholesaler of the country liquor in the State of UP was dominant and engaged in conduct that result in denial of market access and discriminatory conduct in violation  of Sections 4(2)(c) and 4(2)(a) of the Competition Act, respectively.CCI delineated five separate relevant markets, namely market for procurement of country liquor from licensed manufacturers in the following zones of UP i.e. Meerut Zone, Lucknow Zone, Gorakhpur Zone, Agra Zone and Varanasi Zone. CCI noted that OPs1-4 held exclusive licenses in each of the five zones demarcated by the state government, making them the only authority to sell country liquor in wholesale within their respective zones.CCI noted that each of the licensees were dominant in their respective zones on account of the exclusive license granted to them by the Government of U.P.In relation to allegation made under Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, CCI noted that the informant had failed to provide any evidence of anti-competitive agreement between OP 1-4. In regard to the allegations pertaining to abuse of dominance, CCI observed that OPs 1, 2 and 4 gave preferential treatment to two distilleries in terms of procurement, coupled with the fact that these distilleries were owned by OP-5. CCI was of the prima facie view that preferential procurement of country liquor was arbitrary, discriminatory and resulted in denial of market access to other distillers and manufacturers, meriting examination under Sections 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(c) of the Competition Act. In view of the above prima facie findings, CCI directed the DG to conduct investigation into the complaint.[1] Case 53 of 2017.