On February 2, 2017, CCI concurred with the DG’s investigation and dismissed an information filed by Shri Rajat Verma against Public Works Department, Government of Haryana (‘PWD’), Secretary, Haryana PWD, and Superintending Engineer, Haryana PWD, alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act in relation to unfair and discriminatory conditions contained in the bid documents floated by PWD.[1]The DG in its investigation defined the relevant market as ‘the market for procurement of construction services for construction/ repair/ maintenance of roads and bridges (other than railway bridges for railway traffic) in the territories of the States of Haryana, Himachal, Rajasthan, Punjab, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi’. The DG concluded that PWD was not in dominant position in the relevant market as the contractors were not dependent upon PWD for supplying their services for construction of roads and bridges. Furthermore, there were no entry barriers on participation in tenders floated by other contractors in other States and Union Territories in India.CCI concurred with the DG’s analysis, and concluded that since PWD was not dominant in the relevant market, there remained no requirement to examine the allegations of abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, CCI closed the case under Section 26(6) of the Competition Act.[1] Case 70 of 2014.