Natural justice challenge fails where Section 26(2) permits closure of competition information without prior notice to the informant.

Where the Competition Commission forms an opinion under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act that no prima facie case exists, it may close the information forthwith without issuing prior notice to the informant. Section 36(1) does not displace this specific statutory procedure, and Regulation 19 contemplates communication of the closure order after the opinion is formed. The closure order was treated as a speaking order based on examination of the merits, so the natural justice challenge failed and the closure was upheld as valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether closure of information under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 without issuing notice to the informant violated the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Section 26(2) permits the Commission to close the matter forthwith where it forms an opinion that no prima facie case exists, and no notice is envisaged at that stage. Section 36(1) requires observance of natural justice, but that does not override the specific procedure under Section 26(2). Regulation 19 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 also contemplates only communication of the closure order after such opinion is formed. The impugned order was found to be a speaking order and the information had been examined on merits before closure.

Conclusion: The closure of the information without prior notice was held to be valid, and the challenge based on breach of natural justice failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Competition Commission forms an opinion that no prima facie case exists under Section 26(2), prior notice to the informant is not required, and the specific statutory procedure prevails over a general natural justice objection.

---