CCI can reject DG's report finding contraventions under Section 4 after proper examination and hearing parties

The Delhi HC dismissed a petition challenging CCI's rejection of the DG's report finding contraventions under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The court held that CCI is not bound by the DG's recommendations and can reject findings of contraventions after examining the report and hearing parties. CCI properly considered that the disputed contract was negotiated between parties, with some allegedly unfair clauses not objected to during negotiations. The DG's subjective opinions on contract clauses exceeded the scope of investigation under Section 26(3). The court found no violation of natural justice principles and deemed the petition an abuse of process, noting the petitioner lacked authority to represent the affected party.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) was required to direct further inquiry under Section 26(8) of the Competition Act, 2002, when it disagreed with the Director General's (DG) report.
2. Whether the CCI's decision to reject the DG's report was violative of principles of natural justice.
3. Whether the clauses in the Gas Sale Purchase Agreement (GSPA) between GEECL and SRMB were unfair or discriminatory, constituting an abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Act.
4. Whether the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the CCI's order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement for Further Inquiry under Section 26(8):

The petitioner argued that CCI was bound to direct further inquiry if it disagreed with the DG's report, which found contraventions of the Act. However, the court clarified that CCI is not obligated to accept the DG's report and can reject it if it finds no contraventions after examining the report and hearing the parties. Sections 26 and 27 of the Act do not mandate CCI to accept the DG's findings; rather, the DG's report is merely recommendatory. CCI has the discretion to decide whether further inquiry is necessary, and it can close the case if it concludes that there are no contraventions.

2. Principles of Natural Justice:

The petitioner contended that the CCI's rejection of the DG's report violated principles of natural justice as it did not provide an opportunity to contest the reasons for rejection. The court found this argument unmerited, noting that CCI had considered the DG's report and the submissions from both parties before making its decision. The CCI's decision-making process did not deprive the petitioner of a fair hearing, and the court upheld the CCI's approach.

3. Unfair or Discriminatory Clauses in the GSPA:

The petitioner alleged that several clauses in the GSPA were unfair and discriminatory, constituting an abuse of GEECL's dominant position. The DG had identified specific clauses as problematic, but CCI rejected these findings. The court reviewed the clauses and agreed with CCI's assessment, noting that:

- Clause 2: The DG's interpretation of GEECL's power to revise terms was erroneous. The clause allowed for price revisions with SRMB's consent, not unilaterally.
- Clause 4.4: The clause was not unfair as it provided for third-party inspection in case of disputes, a common practice in commercial contracts.
- Clause 5: The Minimum Guaranteed Offtake (MGO) liability was standard in gas supply agreements and not inherently unfair.
- Clause 6: The DG's finding of discrimination based on calorific value pricing was unsubstantiated, as terms were individually negotiated.
- Clauses 9.2, 11, and 15: The DG's opinions on these clauses were subjective and lacked empirical investigation. CCI's rejection of these findings was justified.

The court emphasized that the DG's role is to investigate facts and not to substitute the commercial wisdom of contracting parties. CCI's decision to consider the negotiated nature of the GSPA was appropriate, as none of the parties to the contract had raised complaints against it.

4. Locus Standi of the Petitioner:

The respondents argued that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to challenge the CCI's order, as he was not an aggrieved party. The court found merit in this argument, noting that the petitioner was an employee of SRMB and had no authority to challenge the GSPA on behalf of SRMB. The court also observed that the petition appeared to be an abuse of the process of law, as the petitioner was likely acting on behalf of SRMB due to disputes between SRMB and GEECL.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petition, affirming that CCI had acted within its jurisdiction and discretion in rejecting the DG's report and closing the case. The petitioner's contentions were found to be without merit, and the proceedings were deemed an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs to each of the respondents.

---