Recall of prima facie investigation orders is permissible in narrow cases when no appeal lies and jurisdictional error is shown.

A statutory authority exercising an administrative power to direct investigation under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act may, in narrow and sparing circumstances, recall or review that prima facie order because the statute does not expressly bar reconsideration and no appeal lies against it. The affected enterprise may challenge such a direction where the complaint discloses no contravention, the prima facie view is unsustainable, or there is jurisdictional error or mala fides. The High Court therefore set aside the refusal, restored the recall application, and required fresh consideration within a fixed time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Competition Commission of India has power to recall or review an order directing investigation under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. (ii) Whether an order directing investigation under Section 26(1) could be interfered with at the instance of the person or enterprise proceeded against.

Issue (i): Whether the Competition Commission of India has power to recall or review an order directing investigation under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.

Analysis: The power exercised by the Commission at the Section 26(1) stage is administrative, and the statute does not indicate any express bar against reconsideration of such an order. The order directing investigation is based only on a prima facie view, no appeal lies against it, and the Commission retains control over the investigative process until a final determination is made. An application styled as recall is not automatically impermissible merely because the earlier statutory power of review was deleted. The Commission may, in appropriate cases and within narrow limits, reconsider whether the prima facie opinion survives on the material before it.

Conclusion: Yes. The Commission has power to recall or review an order under Section 26(1), but only within restricted parameters and to be exercised sparingly.

Issue (ii): Whether an order directing investigation under Section 26(1) could be interfered with at the instance of the person or enterprise proceeded against.

Analysis: The investigative powers under the Act are significant and the affected party has no statutory appeal against the direction to investigate. Since the Commission's order is ex parte and founded on a prima facie view, a challenge may be entertained where the complaint discloses no contravention, the prima facie opinion is unsustainable, or there is jurisdictional error or mala fide. The matter should first be examined by the Commission on a recall review application before the investigative process is allowed to continue indefinitely.

Conclusion: The challenge was maintainable in principle, and the matter warranted reconsideration by the Commission.

Final Conclusion: The impugned refusal was set aside, the recall application was restored for fresh consideration, and the Commission was directed to decide it within a fixed time.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory authority exercising administrative power may recall or review its own prima facie order directing investigation unless the statute expressly bars it, particularly where no appellate remedy exists and the authority retains seisin of the matter.

---