The Delhi High Court quashed the writ petition filed by Ultra Tech against the order of the Competition Commission on cartelisation by manufacturers causing increase of grey cement prices.
The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ for quashing the impugned Order issued by Respondent No.1, Competition Commission of India (CCI), allowing the impleadment application of the Respondent No. 2, Builders Association of India, in an ongoing proceeding before the CCI titled, Suo Moto Case No. 2 of 2019, to investigate allegations of cartelisation and price manipulations of Grey Cement Manufacturers.
It was stated that CCI, prior to 01.07.2019, received multiple letters and emails from various participants in the market, including customer trade associations and dealers, alleging that the conduct of grey cement manufacturers had adverse competitive effects within the country. Among them was also a letter dated 08.02.2019 from Respondent No.2/Builders Association of India (BAI), alleging cartelisation by grey cement manufacturers causing abnormal increase of grey cement prices.
The Petitioner being one of the Opposite Parties in the Suo Moto Case No. 02 of 2019, through the receipt of the Order dated 06.10.22 by CCI, had full knowledge of BAI being provided with the copy of the non-confidential version of the DG report dated 01.07.2022 and the presentation of its opinion on the same. This was prior to passing of the impugned Order dated 05.07.2023 which had formalised the impleadment of BAI as a party to the proceedings. There certainly existed reasonable time between the Order dated 06.10,2022 and the impugned Order thereof.
It was alleged by the Counsel for the Petitioner that the principle of Audi Alterum Partem, which forms the essence of natural justice, was not followed by CCI in the present case. It was contended that the Petitioner was neither given due notice of the consideration of making BAI a party as under Regulation 25 of the Competition Regulation 2009 nor were they presented an opportunity of being heard before the impleadment of a third party to the Suo Moto Case No. 2 of 2019.
A Single Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that “Therefore, at the present stage of proceedings in the Suo Moto Case No. 2 of 2019, invoking Section 53N is neither an option for the Petitioner, nor is there any reason to prefer an application for compensation when there exists a carved out provision in the form of Regulation 25 which allows the party to take part in the proceedings before the CCI after its satisfaction. The fact that the proceedings under the Competition Act apply in rem is of no consequence when the CCI is adjudicating the allegations regarding the cartelization and price manipulation.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
