Doors of approaching the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and appellate authority NCLAT ought to be kept “wide open in public interest” so as to subserve the “high public purpose” of the Competition Act 2002, the Supreme Court mentioned on Tuesday.
The observation by the apex court came in its verdict on a petition difficult the order of the NCLAT which held that the informant had no locus standi to move the fair trade regulator, CCI alleging anti-competitive conduct by app-primarily based cab service providers Uber and Ola.
A bench headed by Justice R F Nariman noted the concurrent findings of the CCI and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which had dismissed the plea and discovered that Uber and Ola do not facilitate any cartelization or anti-competitive practices involving drivers, and mentioned there is no explanation to interfere with these findings.
However, the bench sets aside the NCLAT order relating to locus standi of the informant in approaching the CCI.
“Obviously, when the CCI performs inquisitorial, as opposed to adjudicatory functions, the doors of approaching the CCI and the appellate authority, i.e., the NCLAT, must be kept wide open in public interest, so as to subserve the high public purpose of the Act,” the bench, also comprising Justices K M Joseph and Krishna Murari, mentioned in its 33-web page judgement.
During the arguments prior to the apex court, the advocates representing Uber and Ola had mentioned that concurrent findings of the CCI and the NCLAT on merits really should be upheld as there was no query of any anti-competitive practice in the kind of cartelization.
Referring to the provisions of the Act and the 2009 Regulation, the major court noted they showed that ‘any person’ could provide information and facts to the CCI, which could then act upon it in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
“In this regard, the definition of ‘person’ in section 2(l) of the Act, set out hereinabove, is an inclusive one and is extremely wide, including individuals of all kinds and every artificial juridical person. This may be contrasted with the definition of ‘consumer’ in section 2(f) of the Act, which makes it clear that only persons who buy goods for consideration, or hire or avail of services for a consideration, are recognised as consumers,” it mentioned.
Referring to a provision of the Act, the bench mentioned it would show that the law initially offered for ‘receipt of a complaint’ from any individual, customer or their association, or trade association and this expression was then substituted with ‘receipt of any information in such manner and’ by the 2007 Amendment.
“This substitution is not without significance. Whereas, a complaint could be filed only from a person who was aggrieved by a particular action, information may be received from any person, obviously whether such person is or is not personally affected,” it mentioned.
It mentioned even although working out suo motu powers, the CCI could get information and facts from any individual and not merely from a individual who is aggrieved by the conduct that is alleged to have occurred.
It mentioned that section 45 of the Act is a deterrent as false statements and omissions of material details are punishable with a penalty which could extend to hefty quantity of Re 1 crore, with the CCI becoming empowered to pass other such orders as it deems match.
“This, and the judicious use of heavy costs being imposed when the information supplied is either frivolous or mala fide, can keep in check what is described as the growing tendency of persons being ‘set up’ by rivals in the trade,” the bench mentioned.
It mentioned the regulation show that public interest ought to be foremost in the consideration of CCI when an application is produced to it in writing that a individual or enterprise has substantial interest in the outcome of proceedings, and such individual could consequently be permitted to take element in the proceedings.
“What is also extremely important is regulation 35, by which the CCI must maintain confidentiality of the identity of an informant on a request made to it in writing, so that such informant be free from harassment by persons involved in contravening the Act,” the bench noted.