Competition Act, 2002
Section 26 & 27—Order of CCI directing investigation to be carried out into a suspected rigging involving tyre manufacturer—Petitioner challenge to the change in status from a “participant” in the investigation to an “Opposite Party” in the reference without granting opportunity—An entity is entitled to know the status under which its presence and participation is sought in the statutory proceedings—Application of statutory provisions and connected Regulations, their consequences, as well as available protections would vary depending on the status of the party—Unless a party is aware as to the specific provision under which its involvement is sought and obtained, it would be in the dark as to the measures available to it under the law—For a party to be the subject to the rigour of Section 27 of the Act, it must be afforded sufficient opportunity to contest its inclusion/impleadment as a contesting party/opposite party and must be put on notice—Petitioner has stated on affidavit that it has not been furnished the report of the DG under Section 26(3) whereas Section 26(4) makes is statutorily mandatory for the Commission to supply a copy of the report to the parties—This compounds the irregularity in procedure—Petitioner ought to have been given notice prior to impleadment as a party and satisfaction of the authority as to the justification for such impleadment ought to have been made out by way of a speaking order—Impugned order and notice are quashed.
[Paras 24, 32, 45 & 46]