SAURABH TRIPATHY Vs. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 16.02.2017 passed by the Competition Commission of India (hereafter 'CCI') in Case No.63/2014, whereby CCI had concluded that a case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter 'the Act') was established against respondent no.2 (Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd. - hereafter 'GEECL'). The petitioner contends that the said decision is ex facie erroneous, as CCI had rejected the report submitted by the Director General, Competition of Commission of India (hereafter 'DG') establishing that the provisions of Section 4 of the Act had been contravened. It is earnestly contended that CCI was required to direct further inquiry as contemplated under Section 26(8) of the Act and it was not open for CCI to summarily reject the DG report which, after investigation, had found contravention of provisions of Section 4 of the Act. It is contended that the impugned order is also violative of the principles of natural justice as no further opportunity was granted to the petitioner to contest the premise on which CCI rejected the DG's report. The petitioner claims that CCI was required to indicate the reasons on the basis of which it proposed to reject the DG's report before proceeding further, in order to enable the petitioner to contest the same and thus, the failure on the part of CCI to do so has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that CCI has rejected the DG's report, which stated that certain clauses of the agreement in question were unfair, on the ground that the said agreement was arrived at after negotiation between the concerned parties. It is submitted that the said reasoning is manifestly erroneous as having found that the GEECL was in a dominant position, the finding that the clauses of the agreement in question were unfair could not have been rejected on the ground that the agreement had been negotiated between the parties.

(2.) The respondents countered the aforesaid submissions. In addition, it is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that the present petition is not maintainable because the petitioner cannot be considered as a person aggrieved. It is submitted that the petitioner has no interest and has no locus to challenge the order passed by CCI. It is also contended that the present proceedings are an abuse of process of court, considering that none of the parties to the agreement in question - SRMB Srijan Limited (hereafter 'SRMB') and GEECL - have contended that the agreement entered into by them is unfair as contravening Section 4 of the Act.

(3.) The petitioner is an employee of M/s SRMB Srijan Ltd. (SRMB), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. SRMB is a rolling mill comprising two rolling units based out of Sagar Bhanga, Durgapur, West Bengal. SRMB is an energy intensive industrial unit, which primarily used coal for such needs. However, due to the polluting nature of coal and other problems associated with its use, it shifted to a comparatively cleaner fuel - Coalbed Methane Gas (hereafter 'CBM').