SAVIO PEREIRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed, purportedly as a public interest litigation (PIL), while seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Having gone through the averments in the petition and the material placed on record, we have queried the petitioner, appearing in person, about his profession, to which the petitioner has pointed out, though not stated in the petition, that he is a practising Surgeon, serving in St.John s Medical College, Koramangala, Bengaluru. The petitioner would submit that there are several illegalities and irregularities in the conduct of matters in the Competition Commission of India ( the Commission ) and the Competition Appellate Tribunal ( the Appellate Tribunal ), particularly by allowing the retired officials to practice before the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal.

(3.) The material placed on record shows that the petitioner served notices dated 25.03.2018 to the Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice; to the Bar Council of India, through its Chairman; to the Competition Commission of India, through its Chairperson; and to the Competition Appellate Tribunal, through its Chairperson. The common features of the contents of such notices had been of the allegations against two persons named in the reliefs claimed viz., Sri Vinod Dhall and Sri K.K.Sharma for allegedly practising before the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal.