Competition jurisdiction over electricity market abuse can proceed despite sector regulation when the special statute lacks investigative powers.

The text explains that a complaint alleging abuse of dominant position in the electricity market may be entertained under the Competition Act, 2002 even where the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission are also relevant. It notes that the Electricity Act empowers State regulation of supply and distribution, but does not provide an investigative or penal mechanism for abuse of dominance. By contrast, the Competition Act contains an independent inquiry framework, including investigation by the Director General, and allows statutory reference where another authority's domain is engaged. A notice issued on a prima facie view is only a preliminary step, so a writ challenge at that stage is premature.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Competition Commission of India could entertain the complaint and issue notice alleging abuse of dominant position in the electricity market notwithstanding the Electricity Act, 2003 and the powers of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission; and whether the writ petition challenging the notice was liable to be entertained.

Analysis: The complaint alleged abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 by imposing discriminatory conditions in the sale of electricity. The Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the State Commission under Section 23 to regulate supply, distribution, consumption and use of electricity, but the Court found no express provision in that Act conferring any investigative power or power to impose penalty for abuse of dominant position. By contrast, the Competition Act creates a distinct mechanism for inquiry and investigation, including investigation by the Director General under Section 41(2), and also permits a reference to the statutory authority under Section 21-A if an issue falls within another authority's domain. The notice challenged was only a preliminary step based on a prima facie opinion, and the Court declined to examine the merits or the truth of the allegations at that stage.

Conclusion: The Competition Commission of India had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings on the prima facie complaint, and the writ petition challenging the notice was premature and not entertainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notice and initiation of investigation were upheld, leaving the petitioner to contest the proceedings before the Competition Commission of India in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the special statute relied upon does not provide an investigative or penal mechanism for the alleged abuse of dominant position, the Competition Commission may entertain a prima facie complaint under the Competition Act and proceed with investigation, subject to its power to make a statutory reference where necessary.

---