Abuse of dominance investigation notice requirement clarified: no initial notice if no prima facie case; informant need not be heard.

Clarifies that where the competition regulator forms the view that no prima facie case exists in an alleged abuse of dominance matter, its regulations permit closure without issuing prior notice to the informant; the regulator must nevertheless record reasons in a speaking order and send the closure order to concerned parties. The decision holds that such procedure aligns with principles of natural justice as balanced by statute and rules, and that absence of an initial hearing does not vitiate the process when the statutory framework contemplates no notice at the prima facie stage. The appeal challenging this process was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commission, in closing an information under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, was required to give notice to the informant or otherwise follow principles of natural justice; (ii) Whether The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. (SCCL) was dominant in the relevant market such that a case under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 was made out against it.

Issue (i): Whether the Commission was required to give notice or observe further natural justice procedures before closing the matter under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002.

Analysis: Section 26(2) provides that where the Commission is of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case on receipt of information under Section 19, it shall close the matter forthwith and send a copy of its order to the parties concerned. Section 36(1) permits the Commission to be guided by principles of natural justice and to regulate its procedure, and Regulation 19 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 prescribes communication of the closure order. The statutory text and the regulation do not envisage issuance of a prior notice to the informant at the stage of finding no prima facie case.

Conclusion: The Commission was not required to give notice to the informant before closing the information under Section 26(2); the closure without prior notice did not breach principles of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether SCCL was dominant in the relevant market and whether a contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 was established.

Analysis: The Commission considered market delineation (production and sale of non-coking coal to thermal power generators in India), production shares, ownership structure and prior findings in earlier coal cases. The Commission's assessment that SCCL's market share and presence were negligible, that SCCL was a competitor to Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries, and that SCCL did not exercise dominance in the relevant market was recorded in a speaking order applying the statutory framework.

Conclusion: SCCL was not found to be dominant in the relevant market and no contravention of Section 4 was established; the information was rightly closed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is without merit as the Commission lawfully and correctly exercised its power under Section 26(2) to close the information after concluding no prima facie case and after a substantive consideration of market facts; the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Commission, on information received under Section 19, forms the opinion that there exists no prima facie case, Section 26(2) and Regulation 19 permit closure forthwith without prior notice to the informant; a speaking order applying market delineation and dominance analysis suffices to sustain such closure.

---