9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, on basis of viewership ratings, it was found that share of viewers of said television show was not so much for which it could be said that show was in a dominating position - therefore, petition against impugned order was to be dismissed - W.P. (C) NO. 6744 OF 2011 (Arising from order of Competition Appellate (Comp. A.T.) dated 25-7-2011 and 18-8-2011.) - - - Dated:- 16-9-2011 - RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. Sunder Khatri for the Petitioner. Pallav Saxena and Dr. Satya Prakash for the Respondent. ORDER Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - The petition impugns the orders dated 25.07.2011 18.08.2011 of the Competition Appellate (Comp. AT). 2. The genesis of litigation is in a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2215/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition Act, 2002, the said petition was transferred to the Comp. A.T. 5. The petitioner also filed a independent complaint under Section 19 of the Competition Act before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) with the same grievance as in the complaint earlier preferred before MRTPC. 6. The CCI, vide order dated 29.03.2011 dismissed the complaint of the petitioner under Section 19. It was inter alia held that the allegations of the petitioner are to be tested in the light of the opposite party being in a dominant position and thus discriminating in selection of contestants for participation in the programme/show and adopting unfair means therein; however on the basis of viewership ratings, it was found that the share of viewe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As far as the second of the aforesaid contentions is concerned, the counsel for the petitioner admits that it was/is not mandatory, neither under the Monopolies Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 nor under the Competition Act, 2002, that investigation by the Director General should be ordered immediately on receipt of the complaint/ petition. In the face of the said admitted position in law, the petitioner unless makes out a case for investigation, cannot insist upon the investigation. The counsel for the petitioner has however contended that the finding of the CCI that the television show in question was not in a dominant position is conjecturous. It is contended that the said finding also could have been returned only after invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich attention is invited merely records the contentions of the petitioner before this Court and does not return any finding. Similarly, merely because this Court while disposing of the writ petition for the reasons of the matter required to be considered by the MRTPC observed that it may require investigation, did not mandate the CCI to investigate the matter if otherwise no case of maintainability of complaint was made out. 16. As far as the maintainability of the complaint is concerned, neither has any ground been taken in the writ petition not has been urged during the course of hearing. 17. There is thus no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. The petitioner to deposit costs of Rs. 5,000/- with the Delhi High Court Bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
