9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll conspectus of the aforesaid, the Commission proceeded to hold that bearing in mind the advanced stage at which the investigation had reached, it was not inclined to accede to the request made by the petitioner for impleadment at that stage. 2. The challenge to the aforesaid order as was addressed, was noticed by the Court in its order of 01 June 2022 which reads thus: "The instant writ petition impugns the order passed by the Competition Commission of India [Commission] refusing an application made by the petitioner here for being impleaded as an informant in the ongoing investigation and to participate in proceedings before the Commission. According to Mr. Billimoria, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition, the investigation has commenced based upon a complaint which was made by the petitioner and which was in turn forwarded to the Commission for investigation. Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the summons which were issued to the petitioner on 22 January 2021 by the Office of the Director General. In view of the aforesaid, learned Senior Counsel submit that unless the petitioner is accorded a participatory role in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forwarded to the Commission as would be evident from the summons which were received by the petitioner on 22 January 2021. Those facts, according to Mr. Billimoria, would clearly demonstrate that the proceedings had been initiated at the behest of the petitioner and which was consequently liable to be recognised as an "information provider" and thus impleaded in the investigation. According to learned Senior Counsel the aforesaid summons which required the petitioner to duly appear before the Director General is further evidence of its interest in the proceedings which were pending and therefore meriting its impleadment in the ongoing investigation and the proceedings now pending before the Commission. Mr. Billimoria further argued that in terms of Section 26(4) of the Act, the Commission is obliged to forward a copy of the report that may be drawn by the Director General on conclusion of investigation to the "parties concerned". It was submitted that unless the petitioner is duly impleaded as a party in the investigative process it would not only be deprived of the right to receive a copy of the investigation report but also denied the right to refute or challenge the findings or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Commission had received various complaints with respect to cartelization amongst cement manufacturing companies situate in different geographical regions during the period December 2018 to May 2019. It was submitted that while the complaint of the petitioner also fell in a list of those representations which had been received by the Commission, it had ultimately taken cognizance of the issue suo moto and proceeded to analyze the complaints. Mr. Kirpal submitted that since the action was initiated by the Commission suo moto and on an analysis of the numerous complaints which had been received by it, it could not be said that the petitioner was an informant or a party concerned. Mr. Kirpal would contend that if the Director General were to implead or permit the intervention of each and every person which may have provided information to the Commission, it would clearly impede a speedy and effective investigation being undertaken by the Director General. It was his submission that ultimately the aforesaid issue must be left to the sound discretion and judgment of the Director General as well as the Commission. 8. Mr. Kirpal further argued that ultimately the petitioner only s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the material, which has been gathered in the course of investigation, and which would include the allegations leveled by the petitioner against the cement manufacturers, would not be duly taken into consideration by the Commission. Mr. Kirpal submitted that it would ultimately be for the Commission to consider the entire material that had been received in respect of the allegations levelled against the cement manufacturers, to evaluate the evidence gathered during the course of investigation and frame a final view in the matter. It was submitted that since parties would have the right to assail any final order that may ultimately come to be passed by the Commission, there existed no justification for the Court to entertain or continue the challenge as raised by the petitioner here. 11. Having noticed the rival submissions which have been addressed, the Court firstly bears in mind the undisputed fact that upon conclusion of investigation, the Director General has already submitted a report which is to be taken up by the Commission for consideration on 28 September 2022. Viewed in that light it is evident that the prayer of the petitioner to the extent that it sought to be im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - (a) on an application made by a party, Secretary shall furnish to the person or enterprise permitted to participate in the proceedings, copies of such documents previously filed in the matter by other parties as may be decided by the Commission within ten days of the order; (b) the person or enterprise permitted to participate in the proceedings shall furnish copies of all documents filed under sub-regulation (3) to all other parties to the proceedings within ten days of the order." 14. Undisputedly and upon conclusion of investigation, the report of the Director General is to now come up for consideration before the Commission. At that stage, it becomes open to any party, person or enterprise which has a substantial interest in the outcome of proceedings or who is able to establish that its presence before the Commission is necessary in the public interest, to seek a right of audience before the Commission and to present its opinion for its consideration. That is a right which is still open to be asserted by the petitioner. The Court also bears in mind the fact that the report that may be drawn by the Director General is neither determinative nor conclusive since it is ulti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
