Natural justice in competition adjudication is essential when the decision-maker participates without hearing oral arguments.

The Competition Commission, when determining contraventions under the Act, is described as exercising adjudicatory powers with civil consequences and is therefore bound to follow the principles of natural justice. The text further states that a final order is vitiated where a Chairperson who did not hear the oral arguments later participates in and signs the decision, because the rule that the person who hears must decide is a core requirement of fairness. On that basis, the article notes that the penalty order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing the parties in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Competition Commission, while deciding contraventions under the Act, acts as a quasi-judicial body bound by the principles of natural justice. (ii) Whether the final order was vitiated because the Chairperson, who had not heard the oral arguments, participated in and signed the decision.

Issue (i): Whether the Competition Commission, while deciding contraventions under the Act, acts as a quasi-judicial body bound by the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The statutory scheme, including the inquiry, investigation, hearing and penalty provisions, showed that the Commission exercised adjudicatory powers affecting civil consequences. The governing provision required the Commission to be guided by the principles of natural justice, and the procedure under the Act and the Regulations was akin to adjudication, not a purely administrative exercise.

Conclusion: The Commission was bound to act fairly and in conformity with natural justice while deciding the allegations under the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the final order was vitiated because the Chairperson, who had not heard the oral arguments, participated in and signed the decision.

Analysis: The oral hearing had been conducted by six Members, but the Chairperson later joined the decision-making and initialled each page of the final order. The rule that the person who hears must decide is a fundamental facet of natural justice, and the participation of a member who had not heard the parties created prejudice and undermined the fairness of the adjudicatory process. The defect was not cured by the appellate remedy, and the protective provision against procedural irregularity did not apply to such a substantive breach.

Conclusion: The impugned order was vitiated and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the penalty order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing the parties in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicatory authority statutorily bound by natural justice cannot validly decide a matter through a member who did not hear the parties, and such participation vitiates the final order where prejudice to fairness is inherent in the process.

---