Court Affirms CCI's Power to Review Orders, Halts Investigation Pending Reconsideration to Ensure Justice.

The court determined that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) possesses the inherent power to review or recall its orders under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice, despite the absence of a statutory provision for such review. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CCI to reconsider the application for recall of the order directing an investigation. The court ordered that the investigation should not be concluded until the CCI makes a decision on the recall application, and instructed the parties to appear before the Secretary, CCI, for scheduling a hearing.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of an application for recall of an order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act.
2. Jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to review or recall its orders.
3. The impact of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) case on the right of hearing and the maintainability of recall applications.
4. The scope of judicial review of administrative actions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. The procedural requirements and powers of the Director-General (DG) of the CCI during investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of an Application for Recall of an Order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act:
The appellants challenged the order of the CCI directing an investigation without providing them a hearing. They contended that the application for recall of the order was justified since the order was passed without their input. The CCI dismissed the recall application as not maintainable, arguing that the power of review had been expressly removed by the repeal of Section 37 of the Competition Act.

2. Jurisdiction of the CCI to Review or Recall its Orders:
The court examined whether the CCI, despite the repeal of Section 37, retains an inherent power to review or recall its orders. The court concluded that while the CCI exercises administrative power under Section 26(1), it inherently possesses the power to review or recall its orders to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. The court noted that the absence of a statutory provision for review does not negate the inherent power of administrative bodies to correct their own errors.

3. Impact of the Supreme Court's Judgment in SAIL on the Right of Hearing and Maintainability of Recall Applications:
The Supreme Court in the SAIL case held that there is no right of hearing at the stage of forming a prima facie opinion under Section 26(1). However, the court in this case distinguished that the lack of a hearing does not preclude the CCI from exercising its inherent power to review or recall its orders if the initial order was based on incorrect or incomplete information.

4. Scope of Judicial Review of Administrative Actions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The court held that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against an order of the CCI under Section 26(1) on limited grounds, such as the order being without jurisdiction, based on mala fide, or causing unnecessary harassment. The court emphasized that the powers of the DG during the investigation are extensive and can cause significant prejudice to the parties involved, justifying judicial intervention in appropriate cases.

5. Procedural Requirements and Powers of the DG of the CCI during Investigation:
The court noted that the DG, during the investigation, has powers akin to those of a civil court, including summoning witnesses, requiring document production, and recording evidence on oath. The court highlighted that the investigation by the DG is not merely a preliminary inquiry but can have significant consequences, necessitating a mechanism for review or recall of the order initiating such an investigation.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the CCI has the power to review or recall its orders under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act within the parameters of preventing abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. The matter was remanded to the CCI to reconsider the application for recall afresh. The court directed that the investigation should not be concluded until the CCI decides on the recall application. The parties were instructed to appear before the Secretary, CCI, for scheduling a hearing.

---