9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be extended to this petition as well as all other petitions which may also be filed impugning the provisions of the Competition Act and the Regulations thereunder, the same would lead to none approaching CompAT, thereby making CompAT non-functional. In these petitions, are not concerned with the challenge even if made to the merits of the order of the CCI as indeed we cannot be and had clarified so at the initial hearing only. In the hearing till now also, none of the counsels has made arguments on the merits of the order of the CCI. The hearing in these petitions is confined to the challenge to certain provisions of the Act and the Regulations thereunder and to the query raised by us in the order dated 30th September, 2014 supra. We d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 216 (i) of the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. 2. The petition came up before this Court on 17th October, 2014 when it was ordered to be re-notified for 27th October, 2014. On 27th October, 2014 the petition came up before this Bench and was ordered to be re-notified on 28th October, 2014 along with the batch of connected matters. Since then the petition is being taken nearly on a day to day basis along with the connected batch of matters, and we have already heard the counsels for some of the petitioners and the hearing is underway. 3. The writ petition was accompanied with CM No.16889/2014 for stay of the order dated 1st October, 2014 of the CCI during the pendency of the writ petition but til ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appointment to the Office of the Chairperson of the CompAT had been made but appointments to the Office of the Members of CompAT were still pending though expected to be made soon. The counsels for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.6610/2014 and W.P.(C) No.6634/2014 on that date also argued that though the order dated 25th August, 2014 was signed by only the Chairperson and two other members of the CCI but the hearing preceding the same was by other members also. Challenge was made also to Section 27(b) of the Competition Act on the ground of the powers conferred thereunder being unguided and amounting to excessive delegation. We, vide detailed order of that date i.e. 30th September, 2014, while posting the said two petitions for hearing made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er petitions in the batch and thus not granting the same interim order to this petitioner would amount to discriminating this petitioner vis-a-vis the other petitioners in the batch. We may notice that the aforesaid argument has been made inpiste of the learned ASG appearing for the CCI having at the very outset stated that since the hearing is underway, the respondent no.2 CCI will not take any precipitative action against the petitioner also. It is further stated that the petitioner may file the undertaking for filing whereof tomorrow is stated to be the last date, without prejudice to the rights and contentions in this petition and / or subject to the outcome of this petition. 8. However the same is not acceptable to the petitioner. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e arguments on the merits of the order of the CCI. The hearing in these petitions is confined to the challenge to certain provisions of the Act and the Regulations thereunder and to the query raised by us in the order dated 30th September, 2014 supra. We do not see any reason for multiplying the petitions. If the said challenge is to succeed, the judgment would bind all those covered thereby. Thus merely on the ground of having made the same challenge, the persons aggrieved from the orders of the CCI cannot avoid approaching CompAT which as aforesaid is now functional or from seeking the interim relief from CompAT. (d) The contention of the petitioner of discrimination by the Court is misconceived. A judgment / order of the Court can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s entailing different treatment had been made earlier, nevertheless held that there are certain situations where in the interest of general benefit to the community, interest of individual citizens may be overlooked and, refused to allow the A? category mines within the municipal limits to operate as those outside the municipal limits had been allowed to and further held that even if some of the mine owners are worse affected than some others, permission to reopen the mines cannot be granted with a view to compensating them for being placed at par with the less affected group. We may add, that the Court can always say that it is wiser?. (g) Rather we find the stand taken by the petitioner to be unfair. The petitioner, if has fait ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
