The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that it will ?lay down parameters for admission of cases? by competition watchdog CCI, which has alleged that its appellate body, the Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT), had overstepped its brief.
The Competition Commission of India, set up by the government to break monopoly and unfair trade practices, is challenging a stay order given by CAT halting investigations directed by the watchdog into an alleged ?cartel-like arrangement? between steel producer SAIL and the Indian Railways.
A bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia while observing that the question of law needs to be looked into posted the matter for final hearing on July 22.
CCI has sought to clarity if a party can file appeal before CAT even before CCI passes its order against the party. The probe was ordered by CCI after private steel producer Jindal Steel and Power had filed a complaint in December 2008 alleging that ?the exclusive supply agreement? entered into between the Railways and SAIL would kill its chance of bagging the contract through competitive bidding process.
However, CAT, on SAIL?s appeal, had stayed the probe ordered by CCI.
Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium and counsel Tarun Gulati argued that the findings of the tribunal that CCI had violated the principles of natural justice appear to be contrary to the provisions of Act and the rights of any party were not determined or affected while issuing directions under Section 26(1) of the Act.
They said that a party cannot claim a right to be heard by the appellant at the preliminary stage of directing the case to be referred for investigation.
?The tribunal failed to appreciate that the Act (the Competition Act 2002) expressly does not contemplate recording of reasons as it may tend to influence the director general, who is duty-bound to conduct a complete and impartial investigation of facts. Not only would this prejudge the issue before the completion of the investigation but would cause parties to raise numerous disputes at the preliminary stage of investigating a matter which would subvert the entire process of investigation envisaged by the Act,? the petition stated.