Competition regulator review power and hearing safeguards limit recall orders in combination remedy implementation.

A competition regulator cannot substantively recall or review an earlier direction once the statutory review power has been repealed; rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record, so a broader recall is without jurisdiction. Directions affecting inclusion or exclusion of a third party in a white-labelling or combination-remedy process require notice and a fair opportunity of hearing before quasi-judicial consequences are imposed, and orders made without that process are procedurally unsustainable. Where implementation is already advanced, relief may be calibrated to preserve the ongoing remedial process while allowing a limited future opportunity for participation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Competition Commission could recall or review its earlier direction in the absence of a surviving statutory review power; (ii) whether the directions concerning inclusion or exclusion of a third party in the white labelling process were sustainable when passed without notice and hearing; and (iii) what relief should follow in light of the advanced stage of implementation and the petitioner's earlier non-compliance.

Issue (i): whether the Competition Commission could recall or review its earlier direction in the absence of a surviving statutory review power

Analysis: The statutory review provision had been repealed, and the remaining rectification power was confined to correcting a mistake apparent from the record. A substantive recall of an earlier order affecting the rights of parties could not be justified as mere rectification. The Commission therefore lacked authority to re-open the earlier direction in the manner adopted.

Conclusion: The recall or review order was without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether the directions concerning inclusion or exclusion of a third party in the white labelling process were sustainable when passed without notice and hearing

Analysis: The order permitting inclusion was made on a representation affecting the interests of both sides and the ongoing implementation of combination remedies. In such a matter, fairness required notice and an opportunity to make submissions before a decision with quasi-judicial consequences was taken. The earlier and later directions were both procedurally vulnerable for want of a proper hearing process.

Conclusion: The directions on inclusion and exclusion were not sustainable in law.

Issue (iii): what relief should follow in light of the advanced stage of implementation and the petitioner's earlier non-compliance

Analysis: Although the impugned order could not stand, the matter had progressed substantially, and the petitioner had initially failed to submit the required documents within time. The Court balanced the public-interest purpose of the remedial framework, the stage of negotiations, and the need to avoid unnecessary disruption, while still preserving an opportunity for future participation.

Conclusion: The petition was disposed of with tailored directions preserving the ongoing process and allowing the petitioner a later opportunity in the remedy framework.

Final Conclusion: The impugned recall could not be sustained, but the remedial process under the combination approval was allowed to proceed under strict timelines and with a limited future opportunity for the petitioner to participate in the white labelling mechanism.

Ratio Decidendi: A competition regulator cannot substantively review or recall its own order after the statutory review power has been repealed, and where a decision affects the rights of parties in the implementation of combination remedies, it must ordinarily be preceded by notice and a fair opportunity of hearing.

---