9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we dispense service of notice of this appeal on the respondent No.2. 3. The respondent No.1 CCI, on information furnished by the respondent No.2 alleging contravention by the appellant Delhi Development Authority (DDA) of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, vide order dated 11th June, 2013 under Section 26(1) of the said Act directed its Director General (DG) to investigate the alleged contravention. The appellants, vide letter dated 2nd December, 2013 of their advocate called upon the respondent No.1 CCI to first examine and decide on the following fundamental questions of law: "(i) Whether DDA owing to its statutory functions, being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India can be construed to be an "Enterprise' (Section 2(h) of the Competition Act, 2002)? (ii) Whether DDA not being an "Enterprise' in terms of Section 2(h) of the Competition Act, 2002 is amenable to Hon'ble Commission's jurisdiction and can be investigated under the Competition Act, 2002? (iii) Whether functioning of DDA, inter alia under the provisions of the Delhi Development Authority (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968, can be construed to be in violation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was submitted by the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties that in terms of para 5 of the aforesaid order, the Commission is required first to decide the issue of jurisdiction and to pass a separate order in this regard. It was also submitted that in the event, the Commission were to pass an order holding jurisdiction, the Opposite Parties may be given four weeks' time from the date of such order to file their replies / objections to the report of the DG whereafter the matter can be heard by the Commission on merits. The counsel also sought to make certain submissions on the issue of jurisdiction by contending that the Commission had erred by interfering with the statutory functions discharged by the Opposite Parties in accordance with the governing law and regulations etc., framed thereunder. It was also argued that as the matter does not raise any competition law concern, the Informant may agitate the issues before an appropriate forum and not before the Commission. 4. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the Informant disputed the interpretation sought to be placed upon the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court by the senior counsel and submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the parties shall be at liberty to agitate all issues including jurisdictional issues so that if the Commission were to come to a conclusion that it has jurisdiction in the matter, it can immediately proceed to decide the matter on merits, as desired and directed by the Hon'ble High Court. 9. In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before the Commission either in person or through duly authorized representative(s) on 18.03.2015 at 10.30 AM." 6. It is thereafter that the appellants filed CM No.2982/2014 before the learned Single Judge seeking clarification of the aforesaid order dated 21st January, 2015 and for a direction to the respondent No.1 CCI to determine the issue of jurisdiction by separate order before requiring the appellants to furnish any response on merits to the report of the DG. The said application came up before the learned Single Judge on 23rd February, 2015 when the same was dismissed by the following order: "CM No.2982/2015 (u/S 151 CPC by petitioner) This is an application seeking clarification of this court's order dated 25.01.2015 (sic 21.01.2015). In my view, no clarification is required. The application is dismissed." 7. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f dismissal of the application filed for clarification; it is argued that the learned Single judge has erred in refusing to render the clarification inspite of a need therefor having arisen. It is yet further argued that even if learned Single Judge on 23rd February, 2015 read his own order dated 21st January, 2015 to be not providing for the questions raised of jurisdiction to be decided as a preliminary issue, then the same is on a misreading by the learned Single Judge of his own order dated 21st January, 2015 which admits of no ambiguity. 11. We find considerable weight in the contention of the learned ASG. We may in this regard notice that the appellants had filed the writ petition from which this appeal arises aggrieved from the order dated 1st May, 2014 of the CCI refusing to decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and directing the same to be decided at the time of final determination of the matter. No direction was needed for CCI to, at the time of final determination also consider the objection taken by appellants as to jurisdiction. There was no other question for adjudication in the writ petition. Had the learned Single Judge been of the opinion that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt in the light of the order dated 4th February, 2015 of the CCI. It is clarified that in terms of the order dated 21st January, 2015 disposing of the writ petition, the CCI is required to first decide the questions of jurisdiction of the CCI over the appellants and in the subject matter, raised by the appellants and to confine the hearing thereon only. Only if CCI rejects the objections raised by the appellants as to the jurisdiction of the CCI over the appellants and in the subject matter and holds that it has jurisdiction, will the CCI give an opportunity to the appellants to file their reply / response / objections to the report of the DG and shall then proceed to decide the matter on merits. We also deem it expedient to clarify that in accordance with the order dated 21st January, 2015, it will be open to the respondent No.2 informant to at the time of the hearing on the aspect of jurisdiction contend that the said issue has already been adjudicated by the CCI in the order dated 11th June, 2013. We further clarify that even for hearing and decision on the aspect of jurisdiction, CCI would have liberty to rely on the report of the DG and with respect whereto the learned ASG has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
