Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + AT Indian Laws - 2015 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1818 - AT - Indian LawsRefusal of order of investigation - Whether the Competition Commission of India (for short, the Commission) is legally correct and justified in refusing to order an investigation into the alleged abuse of dominant position by Respondent Nos.3 to7? HELD THAT:- While examining information received under Section 19, the Commission has only to satisfy itself whether or not there exists a prima facie case requiring an investigation. If the Commission finds that the averments contained in the information do not disclose any prima facie case, then only it can order closure of the matter. However, for that purpose the Commission cannot delve deep into the merits of the allegations, rely upon undisclosed material and record a finding on the tenability or otherwise of the allegations.What we wish to emphasise is that while scrutinising the allegations contained in the information, the Commission should not confuse the formation of prima facie opinion with the final determination of the issues raised by the informant. In view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA VERSUS STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. [2010 (9) TMI 215 - SUPREME COURT], an order passed by the Commission under Section 26(1) cannot be made subject- matter of appeal under Section 53-B but legality and propriety of an order passed under Section 26(2) can certainly be subjected to judicial scrutiny by the Tribunal. In other words, if in exercise of the appellate power vested in it under Section 53-B the Tribunal is satisfied that the negative opinion formed by the Commission on the issue of existence of a prima facie case is vitiated by an error of law, then it can set aside the impugned order and direct an investigation under Section 26(1) of the Act. Unfortunately, in the present case, the Commission has not undertaken an exercise to find out whether the information and written submissions filed by the appellant along with documents disclose a prima facie case. Instead, it went on to examine the merits of the allegations, relied on the information available on the website of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, took into consideration the installed refining capacity of the industry as a whole and held that none of the players in the relevant market is in dominant position. The Commission then referred to the Market Guidelines and made a categorical observation that the guidelines relate to quantity and quality control aspects and the same do not appear to fall foul of any of the provisions of the Actand the impugned agreement is not likely to create any barrier to the new entrants in the market nor it drives the existing competitors out of the market - This approach of the Commission is not consistent with the philosophy underlying in Section 26(1). Thus, there are no hesitation to hold that a prima facie case is disclosed from the allegations made by the informant and the Commission committed an error by refusing to order an investigation under Section 26(1) - impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commission for issue of a direction to the Director General under Section 26(1) for conducting an investigation - appeal allowed.
|