Cross-examination and confidentiality in competition proceedings upheld where no witness proved the certificate and buyer-wise data remained sensitive.

A party is not entitled to cross-examine chartered accountants on a certificate relied upon in an investigation report where no witness was examined to prove that document, especially when rebuttal by affidavit and other material was allowed. The refusal to permit cross-examination was therefore upheld. Confidential buyer-wise information may also remain undisclosed where the Commission is satisfied that the material is commercially sensitive and confidentiality is justified under the regulatory framework; disclosure is not required merely because a party seeks it for defence. The refusal to disclose the information was upheld, and the writ petition failed in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to cross-examine the chartered accountants whose certificate was relied upon in the investigation report. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to disclosure of the confidential buyer-wise information furnished by the third respondent to the Competition Commission.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to cross-examine the chartered accountants whose certificate was relied upon in the investigation report.

Analysis: The certificate was issued by the chartered accountants to the third respondent and was not a statement made before the Commission. No witness had been examined before the Commission to prove that certificate. The petitioner was not denied an opportunity to controvert the report, because it was permitted to adduce rebuttal evidence by affidavits or other material. Cross-examination was therefore not necessary on these facts.

Conclusion: The petitioner had no right to cross-examine the chartered accountants, and the rejection of that request was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to disclosure of the confidential buyer-wise information furnished by the third respondent to the Competition Commission.

Analysis: The Commission had to be satisfied that the confidentiality claim was justified under the regulatory framework governing confidential treatment of information. The buyer-wise data was treated as commercially sensitive, and the Commission held that it was not shown to be necessary for the petitioner's defence in the manner asserted. The decision whether the material should remain confidential lay within the Commission's satisfaction on the reasons furnished.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to disclosure of the buyer-wise information, and the refusal of access was upheld.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out to interfere with the Commission's order on either cross-examination or confidentiality, and the writ petition failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A party is not entitled to cross-examination where no witness has been examined to prove the document relied upon, and confidentiality claims concerning commercially sensitive material are to be decided on the Commission's satisfaction under the applicable regulatory framework.

---