9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehalf of the parties. It is clearly not open for the petitioner to now seek a rehearing of the matter after appointment of a judicial member. The petitioner s contention that the functioning of CCI would not be paralysed if it is interdicted from passing final orders, is unmerited. Whilst, it is correct that CCI is also required to pass administrative orders as well, its principal function is to dispose of cases instituted either on an information or complaints. Plainly, interdicting CCI from passing final orders would effectively bring its functioning to a standstill. Petition dismissed. - W.P.(C) 6661/2019 & CM APPL. 28107/2019, 28108/2019 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2019 - MR. VIBHU BAKHRU J. Petitioner Through: Mr. Raj Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19(l)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter the Act ) before CCI alleging cartelization among the petitioner and certain other parties (hereafter the Opposite Parties ), who bid for Tender No. 338 of 2015 floated by Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) for conducting trees census within the PMC jurisdiction area, using GIS and GPS Technology, in contravention of Section 3(3)(d) of the Act. 5. CCI considered the information as filed under Section 19(1) (a) of the Act and passed a prima facie order dated 03.10.2017 under Section 26(1) of the Act, directing the Director General (DG) to conduct an investigation in the said matter. 6. On 20.09.2019, Director General submitted a report to CCI (hereafter the DG report ) concl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , two members and the Chairperson of CCI were present. 11. Mr Raj Shekhar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the decision of this Court in Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. Ors v. Competition Commission of India Anr. (supra) and drew the attention of this Court to paragraph 148 of the said decision, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had held that at all times, when adjudicatory orders (especially final orders) are made by CCI, the presence and participation of the judicial member is necessary. He further pointed out that the Court had issued directions to the Central Government to take expeditious steps to fill all existing vacancies in the CCI within a period of six months. He contended that since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in T.C. (C) No. 137/2015 captioned K.R. Tamizhmani Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu Ors. that till such time a reconstitution of the Tribunal does not take place arising from a retirement of a member from the legal field, the existing Tribunal will decide all the cases. 14. He submitted that in view of the above clarification, the decision in Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. Ors v. Competition Commission of India Anr. (supra) could not be read as interdicting CCI from deciding matters, pending appointment of a member having legal and judicial background. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in B.K. Srinivasan and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.: (1987) 1 SCC 658 in support of his contention that by virtue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its of the case. 18. The aforesaid Section makes it amply clear that no Act or proceedings of CCI would be invalid by reason of any vacancy or any defect in its constitution. Thus, notwithstanding, that a judicial member is required to be appointed to CCI, the orders passed by the CCI pending such appointment cannot be called into question. 19. In B.K. Srinivasan and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (supra) the Supreme Court had referred to Section 76-J of the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 which expressly provided that no act done or proceeding taken under this Act would be questioned on the ground merely of existence of any vacancy in, or any defect in the constitution of the Board or any Planning A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
