2026 (1) TMI 1081

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... JUDGEMENT JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) This appeal is against the impugned order dated 12.06.2017 passed under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002. 2. An information was filed by the appellant before the Respondent No.1/CCI seeking an investigation into the abuse of dominance by Respondent No.2, in terms of Section 19 of the Competition Act. However, without issuing any notice or conducting the hearing, the Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated 12.06.2017 under Section 26(2) of the Act, thereby closing the information and holding that Respondent No.2 was not in contravention of Section 4 of the Act and it is in fact a competitor to Coal India Ltd and it further held the dispute is in the nature of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owers to regulate its own procedure. Admitted the Commission has its own regulations known as The Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009. 7. Now let us first examine Section 26(2) of the Act.  It reads as under:- 26. Procedure for inquiry under section 19. (2) Where on receipt of a reference from the Central Government or a State Government or a statutory authority or information received under section 19, the Commission is of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case, it shall close the matter forthwith and pass such orders as it deems fit and send a copy of its order to the Central Government or the State Government or the statutory authority or the parties concerned, as the case may ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order would reveal the commission has rather gone beyond to discuss the merit of the information as is noted in following paras of the impugned order as under:- 8. The Commission notes that the Informant, a State power generating company, requires non-coking coal for its thermal power plants to generate electricity. In the similar setting of factual matrix, the Commission, in previous coal cases (i.e. Case Nos.03, 11 & 59 of 2012) decided on 24.03.2017, after noting the physical characteristics of non-coking coal and its use in power plants, opined that there is no substitute available for non-coking coal used by the thermal power plants in India. Thus, the relevant product market was delineated as non- coking coal, which is used ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dominant position in the relevant market in as much as SCCL has a negligible presence in the relevant market... 11. In this regard, it would also be apposite to note the following figures from Provisional Coal Statistics 2015-16: 12. From the aforesaid, it is seen that SCCL produces a meagre amount of non-coking coal in the relevant market defined supra. For instance, in the year 2014-15 its share of non-coking coal production was an insignificant amount i.e. 9.52% and again its share of non-coking coal production also was insignificant in the next year 2015-16 at 10.44%. Further, from the ownership structure of SCCL, it is observed that it is a government coal mining company jointly owned by the Government of Telangana a....