Judicial review of impleadment under competition law: regulator's satisfaction upheld absent perversity, arbitrariness, mala fides, or jurisdictional error.

Under Regulation 25 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, the Delhi HC held that a statutory regulator's satisfaction on impleadment will not be interfered with in judicial review unless it is perverse, arbitrary, mala fide, or jurisdictionally flawed. The Court accepted that the applicant's asserted substantial interest and public-interest basis were sufficient for participation in proceedings under the Competition Act, 2002, which are in rem and remain non-adversarial in nature. It also rejected natural justice objections because prior knowledge of the proposed participation was evident, and upheld limited inspection of non-confidential records since confidentiality remained protected by Section 57 and Regulation 35. The challenge to the impleadment and inspection order was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order permitting impleadment of a third party under Regulation 25 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 and allowing inspection of non-confidential records under Regulation 37(1) was liable to be quashed for want of adequate reasons, violation of natural justice, breach of confidentiality, or want of jurisdiction.

Analysis: Regulation 25 empowers the Commission to permit participation only where it is satisfied that the applicant has substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings and that allowing participation is necessary in the public interest. The proceedings under the Competition Act, 2002 are in rem and are designed to enable the Commission to reach an informed conclusion on competition law violations; impleadment of a third party does not convert them into a private adversarial dispute. The impugned order recorded the applicant's asserted position as the largest consumer of cement and its claimed direct impact from anti-competitive conduct, which was treated as sufficient reasoning for the statutory satisfaction. The Court declined to reassess the adequacy of that satisfaction in judicial review, absent perversity, arbitrariness, mala fides, or jurisdictional error. The objections based on absence of notice were rejected because the opposite parties had prior knowledge through the earlier order directing supply of the non-confidential DG report to the applicant and inviting its opinion. The confidentiality objections were also rejected because the order permitted only non-confidential inspection and expressly kept the request subject to Section 57 and Regulation 35. The alternate-remedy argument based on compensation proceedings under Section 53N was rejected as inapplicable at that stage.

Conclusion: The impleadment order and the limited permission to inspect non-confidential records were upheld, and the challenge was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In judicial review, the Court will not interfere with a statutory regulator's satisfaction under a participatory provision like Regulation 25 unless the decision is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, mala fide, or jurisdictionally invalid, and prior notice may be inferred where the affected party had clear prior knowledge of the proposed participation.

---