9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 649 - HC - Indian LawsAnti-competition - Cartelisation - unfair trade practices - direction to furnish certain documents and details and to make submissions on the quantum of penalty that may be levied in the event, the petitioner is held to have acted in contravention of the Competition Act, 2002 - rejection of request of the petitioner to cross examine the informant - HELD THAT - In accordance with the procedure under Section 26(8) of the Act read with Regulation 21(7) of the Competition Commission of India (General Regulations), 2009 the CCI forwarded a copy of the Director General s report to the opposite parties in the respective cases, one of them being the petitioner. The report was so forwarded so that the petitioner is given an opportunity to file its objections / suggestions to the report. The order also indicates that an opportunity of oral hearing was to be provided. These investigation reports dated 17.2.2019 and the order accompanying the report dated 2.5.2019 are on record. The impugned orders dated 1.8.2014 and 17.11.2015 only recorded a prima facie opinion that the parties have colluded and formed a cartel for increase of prices in different varieties of paper and thereby warranting investigation for anti-competitive practices under the provisions of Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3)(a) of the Act in the paper industry. What is evident therefore that the information filed was neither restricted to a particular set of manufacturers but was in context of the entire paper industry connected with different varieties of paper. Reading the investigation reports and the orders passed under Sections 26(1) read with Section 26(3) of the Act would indicate that the order is an administrative order which only forms a prima facie opinion. The petitioner has been given an opportunity of producing evidence before the DG during the process of investigation and by the orders impugned the DG has called upon the petitioner to file its objections / suggestions to the investigation report. It cannot be said therefore that the petitioners doors are closed. After affording a reasonable opportunity and considering the objections and suggestions, the Commission based on the investigation reports will take an appropriate decision - The High Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot delve into the merits and demerits of the report when as is also evident from the impugned order by which the request of the petitioner for cross examination of witnesses has been rejected that the CCI has granted liberty to the petitioner to file affidavits in rebuttal to dispute the conclusions drawn by the DG based on the depositions etc. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the orders passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. 2. Scope of investigation by the Director General (DG) and inclusion of copier paper in the investigation. 3. Right to cross-examine the informant. 4. Judicial review of administrative orders under Section 26(1) of the Act. Summary: 1. Validity of the Orders Passed by CCI: The petitioner challenged four orders passed by the CCI, including the direction to furnish documents, the investigation report, the rejection of the request to cross-examine the informant, and the orders directing a joint investigation. The court noted that the CCI, based on Information Petitions, undertook an inquiry under Section 19 of the Act and formed a prima facie opinion warranting an investigation under Section 26(1). The orders were administrative and did not entail civil consequences, thus not subject to judicial review at this stage as per the Supreme Court's decision in Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India. 2. Scope of Investigation by DG: The petitioner argued that the investigation should be limited to writing and printing paper and not include copier paper. The court found that the petitioner had actively participated in the investigation, providing information on all types of paper, including copier paper. The court held that the DG's investigation could encompass all relevant facts and evidence, including copier paper, as the initial order under Section 26(1) was broad enough to cover various aspects of the paper industry. This was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Excel Crop Care Limited v. CCI. 3. Right to Cross-Examine the Informant: The petitioner's request to cross-examine the informant was rejected by the CCI, which concluded that the application did not meet the requirements of Regulation 41(5) of the General Regulations, 2009. The court upheld this decision, noting that the petitioner was given the liberty to file affidavits in rebuttal to the conclusions drawn by the DG based on depositions. 4. Judicial Review of Administrative Orders: The court emphasized that the order under Section 26(1) merely directs an investigation and does not affect the rights and liabilities of the petitioner. The investigation is quasi-inquisitorial and administrative, not adjudicatory. The court cited various judgments, including the Karnataka High Court's decision in Flipcart Internet Pvt. Ltd. v. CCI, to support the view that judicial interference at this stage is premature and unwarranted. The petitioner has the opportunity to file objections and suggestions to the DG's report, and the final decision will be made after considering these inputs. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, reiterating that the orders under Section 26(1) are administrative and do not entail civil consequences. The petitioner must participate in the inquiry process, and any grievances can be addressed during the subsequent stages of the investigation and hearing before the CCI.
|
