2005 (5) TMI 333 - HC - Law of Competition

Prohibition of certain agreements abuse of dominant position and regulation of combinations

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition as Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
2. Application of the Competition Act, 2002
3. Allegations of Mala Fides and Bias
4. Quia Timet Action
5. Non-production of Records

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition as Public Interest Litigation (PIL):

The petitioner claimed to have the locus standi to file the PIL, citing violations of Articles 38 and 39-C of the Constitution of India and potential bias due to the involvement of a Union Minister related to the applicant. The petitioner argued that the application for a Direct To Home (DTH) Licence by the sixth respondent should be rejected due to these violations and potential undue influence.

The court examined whether the petitioner had made out a case for maintaining the writ petition as a PIL. It referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal and Balco Employees' Union v. Union of India, to determine the parameters of PIL. The court concluded that none of the tests laid down by the Supreme Court for entertaining a PIL were satisfied in this case. The petitioner did not represent a disadvantaged group unable to protect their own interests, and no public injury was demonstrated. Therefore, the writ petition was deemed not maintainable as a PIL.

2. Application of the Competition Act, 2002:

The petitioner argued that granting the DTH Licence to the sixth respondent would violate the Competition Act, 2002. The court noted that the relevant provisions of the Competition Act, such as those dealing with anti-competitive agreements, come into play only after an agreement has been entered into. Since the application for the DTH Licence was still under consideration and no agreement had been entered into, the provisions of the Competition Act were not applicable at this stage.

3. Allegations of Mala Fides and Bias:

The petitioner alleged that the presence of the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, who is related to the sixth respondent, would vitiate the entire procedure of processing the application due to bias and mala fides. The court referred to several judgments, including C.S. Rowjee v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, to explain how allegations of mala fides and bias should be dealt with.

The court observed that the allegations were vague and lacked specific details. Furthermore, the individuals against whom mala fides and bias were alleged were not made parties to the petition. The court concluded that the allegations of mala fides and bias could not be accepted.

4. Quia Timet Action:

The petitioner sought a quia timet action to prevent the potential harm that might arise if the DTH Licence was granted to the sixth respondent. The court explained that quia timet actions are preventive measures that require proof of imminent danger and substantial, irreparable harm. The court found that the petitioner had not demonstrated any imminent or irreparable harm that would justify a quia timet action. The court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to this relief.

5. Non-production of Records:

The petitioner argued that the respondents' failure to produce the relevant records indicated that something was wrong. The court noted that the writ petition was for a mandamus and not for a certiorari, and the records had not been called for since the writ petition had not been admitted. The court did not draw any adverse inference from the non-production of records.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of maintainability, lack of applicability of the Competition Act at the current stage, insufficient evidence of mala fides and bias, and failure to justify a quia timet action. The court also found no basis for drawing adverse inferences from the non-production of records. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

← Previous Next →