Impleadment in competition investigation becomes infructuous after report submission, but post-investigation participation may still be sought

Once the Director General's investigation was completed and the report submitted to the Commission, the challenge to refusal of impleadment in that investigation became infructuous. An informant has no automatic right to participate in the investigative stage as of course. The Competition Act, 2002 and the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 permit a person with substantial interest, or where public interest so requires, to seek permission to present its views before the Commission. The Director General's report is not conclusive, and the petitioner may still seek access to the report and make submissions under Regulation 25 before the Commission.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to be impleaded in the investigation before the Director General or otherwise secured a right to participate at that stage, and whether any relief survived after the investigation had concluded.

Analysis: The challenge to refusal of impleadment was rendered infructuous once the Director General completed the investigation and submitted the report to the Commission. The petitioner, being an informant at best, could not claim a direct right to participate in the investigative process as of course. The governing framework in the Competition Act, 2002 and the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 leaves it open to a person with substantial interest in the outcome of proceedings, or where public interest so requires, to seek permission to present its opinion before the Commission. The Court further noted that the report of the Director General is not conclusive and that the petitioner may still invoke the procedure under Regulation 25 and seek access to the report or to address submissions before the Commission.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not granted impleadment in the concluded investigation, but was left at liberty to apply before the Commission under Regulation 25 and to seek participation in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with the petitioner's remedy shifted from intervention in investigation to a request for participation before the Commission at the post-investigation stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the investigative stage has ended, a challenge to non-impleadment in that investigation becomes infructuous, and any further participation must be sought under the procedural regime governing appearance before the Commission on a showing of substantial interest and public interest.

---