Published on: 28th January 2026
Authored By: Yash sharma
IMS LAW COLLEGE, NOIDA
FACTS
The Indian Exhibition Industry Association (IEIA) filed a case against the Ministry of Commerce & Industry (MoCI) and the India Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO) alleging that ITPO, as a regulator and organizer, was abusing its dominant position in the exhibition industry. The IEIA argued that ITPO was imposing discriminatory conditions on other exhibition organizers, limiting competition, and creating an uneven playing field
Background:
IEIA:
The Indian Exhibition Industry Association (IEIA) is the apex body representing the exhibition industry in India, encompassing organizers, managers, and other industry players.
MoCI:
The Ministry of Commerce & Industry (MoCI) is responsible for formulating and implementing policies related to trade, commerce, and industry in India.
ITPO:
India Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO) is a nodal agency for promoting India’s external trade, organizing and facilitating international trade fairs and exhibitions. It also manages the Pragati Maidan exhibition complex.
The IEIA alleged that the ITPO, without a valid reason, killed the exhibitions of other market players in the exhibition industry by fixing its own unrecognized exhibitions and refusing permission to other players by virtue of the guidelines, thereby destabilizing the institutionalized exhibitions of other players. The IEIA accused ITPO of abusing its dominant position by imposing stringent time gap restrictions on other exhibition organizers while organizing its own exhibitions at Pragati Maidan. This led to ITPO being penalized by the CCI for unfair business practices and being asked to cease and desist from anti-competitive activities
ISSUES
Fair trade watchdog CCI has ordered a probe into alleged abuse of dominant market position by ITPO for conditions imposed by it for trade shows and exhibitions held at Pragati Maidan in the national capital. India Trade Promotion Organisation is the government’s nodal agency to promote external trade and it accords approvals for holding of international trade fairs in India and abroad. ITPO organises and facilitates various industrial trade fair and exhibition shows in India and abroad.
IEIA accused ITPO of leveraging its dual role as both regulator and organizer of exhibitions to favor its own events over those of third-party organizers. This included imposing stringent “time gap restrictions” that disadvantaged other organizers. For instance, while a 15-day gap was required between similar events, ITPO mandated a 90-day gap before and a 45-day gap after its own events, effectively limiting competitors’ access to the venue. ITPO was found to delay confirmations for event dates for third-party organizers and did not follow a first come-first-serve policy. Additionally, it imposed unfair conditions, such as mandatory booking of additional spaces and compulsory use of ITPO’s enlisted housekeeping services, regardless of the organizers’ preferences .
Conflict of Interest: The core of the issue lies in ITPO’s conflict of interest—acting as both a service provider and a regulator. This dual role allowed ITPO to set policies that could potentially hinder. Competition Commission of India further imposed a Rs 6.75 crore penalty on the Indian Trade Promotion Organisation, a central government agency, for indulging in unfair business practices.
It has been observed that a large number of organisers are coming forward to india to organise events in india on a whole scale but at times frequent exhibition convey or incite confusing signals to the participants and to business elites from india and abroad and when events also lead to poor business response causing loss of opportunity on the side of organiser and nation.
Further there exists the need to have transparency in granting approvals by the designated authority, thus the need was felt to review the existing framework and the respective committee was constituted by the ministry of commerce.
LEGAL CONTEXT
Relevant Provisions of the Competition Act, 2002: held in the above case Section 3: Prohibits anti-competitive agreements and practices.
Section 4: Addresses abuse of dominance by enterprises.
Section 19(1)(a): Allows filing of information about potential violations of the Act. Section 26(1): Directs the Director General to investigate the matter.
Section 27: Allows the Commission to pass orders after investigation.
Section 48: Deals with fixing responsibility of individuals involved in contraventions.
In 2006, ITPO revised its guidelines to impose a “time gap restriction” between events with similar product profiles. Specifically, non-ITPO events were required to maintain a 15-day gap, while ITPO’s own events enjoyed a more favorable window: 90 days before and 45 days after their events. This disparity was further extended in 2011, mandating a 90-day gap both before and after ITPO events for third-party organizers. IEIA contended that such measures were arbitrary and discriminatory, adversely affecting other players in the market by limiting their ability to schedule events and by imposing additional conditions, such as mandatory use of ITPO’s services.
Let us take a look at the legal issues involved in the above case in brief.
Section 4 – Abuse of Dominant Position: Under this section, it is forbidden for enterprises to abuse their dominant position in the market. The IEIA accused ITPO of abusing its dominant position through the exercise of control over Pragati Maidan and as regulator and competitor, by subjecting third-party event organizers to unfair terms such as strict time-gap restrictions and compulsory use of the services of ITPO.
Section 19(1)(a) – Investigation into Certain Agreements and Abuse of Dominant Position: This section enables any individual, consumer, or their association to submit information to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) accusing contravention under the Act. The IEIA submitted the complaint under this section, which directed the CCI to investigate.
Section 26(1) – Inquiry Procedure: When the information is received, the CCI instructed the Director General to conduct an investigation in respect of the above section
Section 27 – Commission’s Orders following Inquiry: The CCI, after investigation, held ITPO guilty of misuse of dominant position and ordered a penalty of ₹6.75 crore, requiring it to stop such anti-competitive behavior.
Section 2(h) – Definition of ‘Enterprise’: ITPO was an ‘enterprise’ under this section since it was carrying out economic activities in the nature of conducting trade fairs and exhibitions.
Section 2(s) and 2(t) – Definitions of ‘Relevant Market’: These sections lay down the definition of the relevant geographic market and the product market, which were important in the determination of the dominance of ITPO in the market for venues for trade fairs and exhibitions in Delhi
GLIMPSE OF LEGAL FRAMEWORK UPHELD
CCI’s Findings
The CCI examined the complaint and, in its order of 2014, held that ITPO enjoyed a dominant position in the market for offering venues for trade fairs and exhibitions in Delhi. The Commission held that ITPO’s time gap policy was discriminatory and constituted an abuse of its dominance under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The CCI further observed that ITPO’s role as a regulator and a competitor in the exhibition sector gave rise to a conflict of interest .
COMPAT’s Reversal
But then in 2016, the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) reversed the order of the CCI. COMPAT opined that ITPO’s time gap policy had objective reasons, including logistical aspects and the necessity to effectively handle limited availability of venues. The Tribunal opined that these reasons were enough to rebut the charge of abuse of dominance.
Development of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
As an integrated response to the disruptions faced by the exhibition industry during the COVID-19 pandemic, ITPO partnered with associations like IEIA, FICCI, and others to prepare
industry-wide SOPs for safe exhibitions. The guidelines were crafted to establish a common safety standard across the industry and were submitted to the government for approval.
Key Arguments of the Petitioner:
Abuse of Dominant Position: IEIA argued that ITPO, as a regulator as well as a competitor in the exhibition business, abused its dominant position. ITPO operated Pragati Maidan, a prime exhibition complex in Delhi, and also staged its own trade shows,
Discriminatory Time Gap Limits: ITPO enacted time gap limits between comparable events, which were stricter for third-party organizers than for its own events. For example, third party events with comparable profiles had to have a gap of 90 days preceding and following ITPO’s events, while ITPO’s events did not have to contend with such strict limits.
Arbitrary Changing of Guidelines: Even though the time gaps in lifting restrictions were initially removed in 2003 as per the Ministry of Commerce directions, ITPO reinstated and modified these restrictions in 2006 and 2011 with no justifiable reason. These modifications negatively impacted other exhibition organizers by derailing their well-established events.
Imposition of Exorbitant Conditions: IEIA charged that ITPO was imposing unfair conditions upon exhibitors, for example, insisting upon pre-booking extra ‘foyer area’ and forcing exhibitors to use empaneled housekeeping facilities of ITPO at extra costs, thus making it costly for third-party organizers and curtailing their freedom of operations.
Absence of Transparency and Equitability: IEIA contended that ITPO’s dual function and the absence of explicit, equitable, and transparent policies for space allotment and event planning at Pragati Maidan resulted in an unequal playing field, putting other participants in the exhibition business at a disadvantage.
These reasons were directed at pointing out how the practices of ITPO possibly violated Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, by entering into anti-competitive agreements and abusing its dominant position in the concerned market.
Key Arguments presented by the Respondents:
Implementation of a Uniform Policy:
ITPO notified the Competition Commission of India (CCI) that it had prepared a competition friendly and uniform policy for leasing exhibition space and facilities in Pragati Maidan. The policy was to address aberrations in the current system and make the allocation of exhibition venues fair.
Commitment to Modify Time Gap Policy:
To address the issue mentioned regarding discriminatory time gap limitations between comparable events, ITPO promised the CCI that it would frame an easy-to-use time gap policy. The organization promised to amend the present policy upon expiration of three months to achieve consistency in conducting fairs and exhibitions at Pragati Maidan.
Role as a Trade Promotion Entity:
ITPO reiterated its core function as a government-owned corporation with the mandate to develop India’s foreign trade. It maintained that its activities, such as staging trade fairs and trade exhibitions, were within its mandate of promoting trade and were not aimed at stifling competition.
Adherence to Competition Act Provisions:
ITPO argued that it was within the definition of an “enterprise” as provided in Section 2(h) of the Competition Act, 2002, and that its activities were governed by the provisions of the Act. Yet it argued that its actions did not violate Sections 3 and 4 of the Act since it was not entering into anti-competitive agreements or abusing a dominant position.
Assurance of Non-Discriminatory Practices
The Commission was assured by the organization that non-discriminatory procedures would be applied in alloting exhibition space and also in laying down guidelines, thus mitigating fears regarding preferential treatment and arbitrary terms being applied to third-party organizers.
These points were made to indicate ITPO’s adherence to equitable practices and counter complaints regarding anti-competitive behavior in the management and allocation of exhibition space at Pragati Maidan.
CONCLUSION
In Indian Exhibition Industry Association v. Ministry of Commerce and Industry & Indian Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO), the Competition Commission of India (CCI) held ITPO guilty of abusing its market position as a dominant player to organize trade fairs and exhibitions in Delhi. ITPO imposed discriminatory time-gap restrictions in favor of its own events relative to third-party events in Pragati Maidan, thus offending Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i), 4(2)(c), and 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act, 2002.The CCI ordered ITPO to discontinue such anti-competitive conduct and levied a fine of ₹6.75 crore, which is 2% of ITPO’s average turnover during the last three financial years.
But, on appeal, COMPAT overruled the CCI’s order, reasoning that ITPO’s conduct had rational reasons and was not abuse of dominance under the Act.This case highlights the intricacies involved when a government agency acts both as a regulator and as a market player, and thus there is a necessity for explicit policies to avoid conflicts of interest as well as maintain fair competition
