Natural justice in competition proceedings requires constant coram and oral hearing on supplementary reports and penalty quantum.

A quasi-judicial body must decide a matter with the same substantially hearing members, and a final order signed by a reduced coram after delay raises a serious natural justice concern. The text also states that, where a supplementary investigation report is considered, affected parties should ordinarily be given an oral hearing, especially when penalty and its quantum are under consideration. The combined effect is that fairness requires both proper constitution of the decision-making body and a meaningful opportunity to address additional material before final adjudication, failing which the order is vulnerable to challenge and remand for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the impugned order was vitiated because the coram which heard the final arguments did not remain constant and the final order was signed by fewer members than those who heard the matter, coupled with an inordinate delay in pronouncement; (ii) whether the Competition Commission was required to grant an oral hearing after receipt of the supplementary investigation report and on the issue of penalty and its quantum.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned order was vitiated because the coram which heard the final arguments did not remain constant and the final order was signed by fewer members than those who heard the matter, coupled with an inordinate delay in pronouncement.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 36 of the Competition Act, 2002 requires the Commission to act in accordance with natural justice, while Section 22 contemplates decision by the members present and voting and the relevant business regulations emphasise orderly hearing and signing of final orders. The Tribunal relied on the principle that a body hearing a matter should itself decide it, and treated the constant-coram requirement as integral to fair hearing. It noted that the matter had remained reserved for a long period and that the final order was issued by a smaller set of members after some members had demitted office, creating a serious infirmity in the decision-making process and a legitimate apprehension of prejudice.

Conclusion: The challenge succeeded. The impugned order was held to be vitiated and was set aside in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the Competition Commission was required to grant an oral hearing after receipt of the supplementary investigation report and on the issue of penalty and its quantum.

Analysis: The Tribunal read Sections 26 and 36 of the Competition Act, 2002 together with the procedural regulations to hold that once further investigation had been directed and a supplementary report was considered, fairness required an opportunity of oral hearing to the affected parties. It further held that, where penalty was in contemplation, the parties should have been heard on the issue of quantum as part of the final adjudicatory exercise.

Conclusion: The omission to grant oral hearing on the supplementary report and penalty issue was held to be contrary to natural justice and in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained for breach of natural justice, and the matters were remitted for fresh consideration by an appropriately constituted coram with all contentions kept open.

Ratio Decidendi: In a quasi-judicial proceeding, the same members who substantially hear the matter must participate in the final decision, and where further material is introduced through supplementary investigation, fairness may require a fresh opportunity of oral hearing before final adjudication.

---