Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + Commission Indian Laws - 2013 (2) TMI Commission This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 582 - Commission - Indian LawsSection 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 invoked - Abuse of dominant position - Appellant company was engaged in activities including mining, logistics and infrastructure development used services of rail transport, owned and controlled by opposite parties (OP) for transportation of iron ore extracted from mines of informant - OP reclassified iron ore based upon its end-use, thereby imposing different freights on iron ore based on its end-use - Whether OP's action of reclassification and revision of rates/freight of commodities is violation of provisions of Act and abuse of dominant position? - Whether fixing a rate or issuing a rate circular amounts to a delegated legislation and whether the CCI could go into question of validity of such a circular which was stated to be in the nature of delegated legislation - Held that:- In exercise of the function of reclassification and revision of rates/freight by railways was no prima facie violation of the provisions of the Act as the power of reclassification and revision of rates/freight is entrusted to the Central Government under section 31 of the Railways Act, 1989. The exercise of such functions by itself, in the absence of any other cogent evidence establishing that such conduct is in violation of the provisions of the Act, does not justify a direction by the Commission to recommend the DG to investigate and analyse the conduct of the opposite parties as by the statutory provision, the legislature has authorized the Central Government to classify and revise rates/freight with respect to carriage of passenger and goods uniformly applicable for all the entities who wanted to avail the services of Indian railways for transporting their goods. However, in the absence of any prima facie case of violations of the provisions of the Act, being made out on the basis of available material, no interference is warranted by the Commission in instant case as no abuse of dominant position is proved here.
|