Summary
The Court rejected the NCLAT’s narrow view that only a personally injured informant could approach the Competition Commission or appeal. Competition proceedings serve public interests and operate in rem; any person may supply information and challenge an adverse closure order. On the merits of the information concerning Ola and Uber, however, the Court declined to disturb concurrent findings that the alleged driver cartelisation was not made out.
Issues
- Whether an informant must show personal legal injury to approach the CCI or appeal against closure.
- Whether the findings rejecting cartelisation through the taxi platforms warranted interference.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(l), 19(1), 35 and 18, Competition Act, 2002The broad statutory scheme permits information from any person, whether personally affected or not, in furtherance of public-interest competition oversight. (¶¶ 11, 13–17, 20–22)
- Sections 53B and 53T, Competition Act, 2002A person supplying information can be aggrieved by an adverse closure order and invoke the appellate remedies; the expression is construed in the Act’s public-interest context. (¶ 18–22)
- Sections 26(2) and 3(1), (3)(a), Competition Act, 2002The closure and concurrent factual findings rejecting the alleged cartel arrangement among drivers were left undisturbed on this record. (¶¶ 3–5, 11, 23)
- Sections 45 and 53N(3), Competition Act, 2002False information and appropriate costs provide safeguards against abuse; unlike an informant, a compensation applicant must show loss or damage. (¶¶ 15, 20)
- Regulations 10, 25 and 35(1), Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009Information requirements, public-interest participation and confidentiality provisions reinforced the broad approach to informant standing. (¶¶ 12, 16)
Held
- Any person may give information under section 19 without demonstrating personal injury. Replacement of complaint with information and the scheme allowing suo motu action reflect proceedings in rem serving public interests. The NCLAT’s restrictive construction was set aside. (¶ 13–17)
- The Act’s appellate expression person aggrieved includes an informant whose information is rejected by closure. A narrower construction from professional disciplinary proceedings was inapposite. Compensation proceedings differ because the claimant must establish loss or damage. (¶ 18–22)
- The possibility of frivolous or malicious information does not justify restricting statutory access. Section 45 and judicious imposition of heavy costs can address abuse; no such penalty or costs order was imposed here. (¶ 15)
- On the information and record in this case, the concurrent findings that the platforms did not facilitate cartelisation among independently acting drivers disclosed no reason for interference. This merits disposition did not negate the informant’s standing. The resale-price-maintenance issue had not been pressed before the NCLAT. (¶¶ 4, 23)
Result
Appeal disposed of: NCLAT’s restrictive ruling on standing set aside, but concurrent merits findings and closure of the information left undisturbed.