9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent to the CCI. In view of the need for the proceedings before the CCI to be concluded expeditiously, as mandated by the SAIL’s case (2010 (9) TMI 215 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), it is directed that the said time schedule should be strictly adhered to by the parties. With the above directions the writ petitions are disposed of. The pending applications are also disposed of. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 20-9-2010, dealt with the preliminary objections raised by the Petitioners on the issue of jurisdiction, and the said order is the subject matter of the Appeal No. 8 of 2010 before the Appellate Tribunal, the said aspect need not be considered by this Court at this stage. 4. Mr. Desai, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioners assailed the order dated 20-5-2010 passed by the CCI under section 26(1) of the Act principally on the ground that it did not contain sufficient reasons for forming a prima facie opinion that an inquiry must be initiated against the Petitioners under the Act. He submitted that this was contrary to the observations of the Supreme Court in Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. ('SAIL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record its satisfaction "(which has to be of much higher degree than formation of a prima facie view under section 26(1) of the Act)." Clearly therefore the reason which the CCI is expected to give while forming a prima facie view under section 26(1) of the Act is of a lesser degree than that required in an order under section 33 of the Act. 7. On an examination of the order dated 20-5-2010 passed by the CCI under section 26(1) of the Act, in light of the SAIL's case (supra), it appears to this Court that the reasons recorded therein for prima facie opinion formed are consistent with the requirement of the law. The challenge to the order dated 20-5-2010 of the CCI on the said ground is therefore negatived. 8. As regards the order dated 2- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Central Government or the State Government or the statutory authority or the parties concerned, as the case may be." The above regulations are consistent with the requirement of sections 26(4) to (8) of the Act. 10. By letter dated 2-12-2010 a copy of the investigation report of the ADG was forwarded to the Petitioners inviting their objections thereto. This was consistent with the requirement of regulation 21(7). Fixing a hearing for consideration of the objections cannot be said to be inconsistent with either regulation 21(7) or regulation 21(8). What can happen at the hearing before the CCI when the Petitioners' objections to the ADG's report would be considered cannot be anticipated at this stage. If the CCI upon consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
