The GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited (GHIAL), operator of Hyderabad’s Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, was pulled up by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on October 3, and a probe was ordered after a complaint was filed by Air Works India, a company which works on maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) of aeroplanes. However, on October 16, the Telangana High Court stayed this order as Air Works has filed a writ petition with the High Court that's currently pending.
In its complaint, Air Works alleged that GMR is abusing its dominant position and is denying another company access to the market. Section 4 in the Competition Act, 2002, states that a company cannot abuse its dominant position, which includes indulging in practices which prevent another company from accessing the market. The work done by an MRO company like Air Works could reportedly include troubleshooting, replacing components, fix defects, etc, which is required for a plane to be fit for departure. Air Works is one of the major players in the sector, and one of the only other independent MRO service providers is GMR Aero Technic Ltd. According to a 2017 report, Air Works provides support to airlines such as Vistara and Spicejet at its Bengaluru facility, and provides transit checks (inspections in between flights) at 14 airports. Air Works alleged that their licence wasn’t extended to provide line maintenance, and they were denied access to the airport. Air Works accused GMR of taking full control to favour GMR Aero Technic Ltd.
“Thus, the facts of the present case prima facie suggest denial of market access to the Informant coupled with exclusionary motive by GMR to favour its own group entity (i.e. GAT). Owing to its dominance in the upstream market and its presence in the downstream market, GMR seems to have distorted the level playing field,” the order by the CCI read. CCI stated that this warranted a probe under Section 4(2)(c) as well as Section 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act. Section 4(2)(c) deals with indulging in practices resulting in the denial of market access and Section 4(2)(e) is when a company uses its dominant position in one relevant market to enter into or protect other relevant markets. The CCI directed the director general of GMR to carry out an investigation into the matter and submit a report within 60 days.
However, on October 16, the Telangana High Court stayed this order. In a statement to TNM following the publication of this article, a GMR Infra spokesperson said, "GMR would like to clarify that, the Order of Competition Commission of India (CCI) dated 03.10.2019 has already been stayed by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana on 16.10.2019 and the matter is sub-judice. We would like to present the facts of the case as follows:
Aggrieved by the vacation notice issued by GHIAL, Airworks approached Hon’ble High Court of Telangana on 02nd July, 2019 seeking extension of space agreement and sought interim relief to continue in the space."
Air Works filed two interim petitions with the High Court to continue working at the airport - one before a Single Judge Bench, and one before a Division Bench. Both these interim pleas were dismissed, while the writ petition on the issue is still pending in the High Court. In its order on October 16, the High Court pulled up CCI, asking them why no preliminary hearing was held with all respondents to find out whether a prima facie case exists. It further ordered a stay on CCI's order.
Apart from Hyderabad, GMR operates the Delhi airport and is also working on the Goa airport.
Note: This article was edited to include GMR's statement and the Telangana High Court's order on the issue.