Comprehensive competition investigation allows the Director General to report emerging abuse of dominance issues found during inquiry.

A direction for investigation under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 authorises a comprehensive inquiry into the matter, not a narrow review of only the initial allegation. Where investigation reveals a possible abuse of dominant position under Section 4, the Director General may examine and report it even if the information originally alleged only a Section 3 contravention. The investigation stage is preliminary and inquisitorial, so a prior hearing on every emerging issue is not mandatory; written responses before the Director General and objections before the Commission are sufficient procedural safeguards. The appeal succeeded, the Single Judge's view was set aside, and further proceedings on the report were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in an investigation initiated under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 on information alleging contravention of Section 3, the Director General could lawfully examine and report a prima facie violation of Section 4 that emerged during the investigation; (ii) Whether the Director General's report was invalid for want of prior notice or opportunity of hearing on the Section 4 issue during the investigation stage.

Issue (i): Whether, in an investigation initiated under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 on information alleging contravention of Section 3, the Director General could lawfully examine and report a prima facie violation of Section 4 that emerged during the investigation.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats the Commission's direction under Section 26(1) as a trigger for a comprehensive investigation into the matter. The Commission's prima facie view does not confine the Director General to the exact formulation of the original information where the investigation, in the course of gathering evidence, reveals other violations of the Act. The investigation under the Act is distinct from the final adjudicatory stage, and the Director General is expected to analyse the material collected during investigation, not merely the initial allegations in isolation. On the facts, the direction to investigate "the matter" was wide enough to encompass an emerging issue of abuse of dominant position.

Conclusion: The Director General was competent to examine and report a possible violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

Issue (ii): Whether the Director General's report was invalid for want of prior notice or opportunity of hearing on the Section 4 issue during the investigation stage.

Analysis: The investigation stage under Section 26(1) is preliminary and inquisitorial. The Act does not require a mandatory pre-investigation hearing in every case, and the extent of participation at the investigative stage depends on the statutory scheme and the facts. The affected party had an opportunity to file written responses before the Director General and, after the report was submitted, to place objections and materials before the Commission. That framework satisfies the procedural structure of the Act and does not render the report void merely because Section 4 was also examined during investigation.

Conclusion: The report was not vitiated for breach of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the Single Judge's view was set aside, and the Commission's order directing further proceedings on the Director General's report was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A direction under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 authorises a comprehensive investigation into the matter, and the Director General may include other violations revealed during that investigation even if they were not the precise subject of the initial information, subject to the procedural safeguards provided at the later inquiry stage.

---