B UNNIKRISHNAN; SIBI MALAYIL; SIDDIQUE; KAMALUDDIN @ KAMAL; GIRIDHAR V V ; K MOHANAN Vs. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA; T G VINAY KUMAR @ VINAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exts.P2, P3 and P5 orders passed by the Competition Commission of India constituted under the Competition Act, 2002 ('the Act' for short), are under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The second respondent is a person closely associated with the Malayalam film industry in different capacities. He lodged Ext.P1 complaint before the Competition Commission of India ('the Commission' for short), alleging that the opposite parties, taking advantage of their dominant position in the industry, are indulging in anti-competitive practices to restrain him from carrying on his business. To be precise, the main allegation in Ext.P1 complaint is that a ban has been imposed against him by the second opposite party namely, the Film Employees Federation of Kerala and its affiliated trade unions.

(3.) On 24.2.2015, the Commission directed its Director General to cause an investigation into the allegations raised in the complaint. A report has been filed pursuant to the said direction by the Director General, on 18.11.2015. Ext.R2(a) is the report of the Director General. On a consideration of Ext.R2(a) report, as per Ext.P2 order, the Commission decided to forward copies of the said report to the complainant and opposite parties 1, 2, 6 and 7. As per the said order, the Commission also decided to forward copies of the report to persons identified in the report as responsible for contravention of the provisions of the Act. Petitioners are six out of the eight persons named in Ext.P2 order as persons responsible for contravention of the provisions of the Act. They are some of the office bearers of the opposite parties 1, 2, 6 and 7 in the complaint. As per Ext.P2 order, the Commission directed opposite parties 1, 2, 6 and 7 as also the persons named therein including the petitioners to file their objections to the investigation report submitted by the Director General and appear for an oral hearing on the report of the Director General in person or through their duly authorised representatives on 3.2.2016. Opposite parties, 1, 2, 6 and 7 were also directed as per the said order to file their financial statements for the preceding three years. By Ext.P2 order, the Commission also directed the petitioners to file their income tax returns for the preceding three years. The petitioners did not appear in person before the Commission on 3.2.2016 nor did they file their income-tax returns as directed in Ext.P2 order. Since the opposite parties and others in the complaint to whom copies of the report of the Director General were forwarded as per Ext.P2 order sought time to file objections to the report, the hearing of the case was adjourned to 10.3.2016. The petitioners did not appear before the Commission on 10.3.2016 as well. The hearing proposed on the report of the Director General as per Ext.P2 order was, however, re- scheduled to 21.4.2016. The petitioners did not appear before the Commission on 21.4.2016 also. In the circumstances, the parties who appeared before the Commission were heard in part on 21.4.2016 and the hearing was concluded on 27.4.2016. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the Commission on 27.4.2016. Since the petitioners did not appear on 27.4.2016 also, as per Ext.P3 order, the Commission directed that the proceedings will be continued against them as if they have nothing to say in the matter. On the same day, by a separate order, the Commission directed its Secretary to issue notice to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause why penalty under Section 43 of the Act shall not be imposed on them for non compliance of the direction issued by the Commission in Ext.P2 order to file their income tax returns. Ext.P5 is the order issued by the Commission in this connection. Pursuant to Ext.P5 order, notices have been issued by the Secretary of the Commission to the petitioners and the petitioners have submitted their reply to the notices. Ext.P6 is the notice issued to the first petitioner pursuant to Ext.P5 order and Ext.P7 is the reply sent by the first petitioner to Ext.P6 notice. It is stated by the petitioners in the writ petition that replies identical to Ext.P7 have been sent by the remaining petitioners also. Along with the replies, the petitioners have also forwarded their income tax returns. Final orders in this connection are yet to be passed by the Commission. The Commission has also not disposed of the complaint preferred by the second respondent. This writ petition is filed at that point of time, challenging Exts.P2, P3 and P5 orders.