Competition law can review bid rigging in regulated lottery tenders; premature writ intervention cannot halt a pending inquiry.

Regulatory control over lotteries does not bar competition-law scrutiny of alleged bid rigging and collusive bidding in the tender process for appointing distributors and selling agents. The Court treated the distributive activity as capable of falling within the broad meaning of "service", and held that anti-competitive conduct in procurement remains subject to inquiry even where the underlying business is regulated. It also held that premature writ interference at the stage of a prima facie order and Director General investigation was unwarranted, since the statutory process had not reached final adjudication. The Commission's jurisdiction was upheld and the inquiry against the private parties was allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Competition Commission had jurisdiction to inquire into alleged bid rigging and collusive bidding in the tender process for appointment of lottery distributors and selling agents, notwithstanding that lottery business is regulated and treated as res extra commercium; (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in interdicting the proceedings at the stage of the Commission's prima facie order and the Director General's investigation.

Issue (i): Whether the Competition Commission had jurisdiction to inquire into alleged bid rigging and collusive bidding in the tender process for appointment of lottery distributors and selling agents, notwithstanding that lottery business is regulated and treated as res extra commercium.

Analysis: The inquiry before the Commission was confined to the tendering process and the possible existence of anti-competitive conduct among bidders. The regulatory character of lotteries did not exclude scrutiny of bid rigging under the competition law. The definition of "service" was treated as broad enough to cover the distributive activity involved in making lottery tickets available to users, and the fact that the underlying business is regulated did not immunise collusive conduct in procurement or appointment of agents from competition scrutiny.

Conclusion: Jurisdiction existed in favour of the Commission, and the challenge to its competence failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in interdicting the proceedings at the stage of the Commission's prima facie order and the Director General's investigation.

Analysis: The proceedings had not reached a final adjudicatory stage. The Commission had already indicated that it would not proceed against the State, and the proper course was to allow the inquiry against the private parties to continue, with any grievance against a final order to be pursued in appeal. Premature writ intervention stopped an ongoing statutory process without warrant.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unjustified and the statutory proceedings against the private parties were restored to continue in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside, the writ proceedings concerning the State were closed, and the proceedings against the private parties were permitted to proceed before the Commission.

Ratio Decidendi: Regulatory control over a business does not bar competition-law scrutiny of anti-competitive conduct in its tendering or distribution process, and premature writ interference should not stifle a pending statutory inquiry before final determination.

---