Difference between direction for investigation and further investigation under Competition Act, 2002

If Law does not permit service of notice while directing investigation by Director General under Competition Act, a need of notice cannot be pressed at the stage warranting further investigation

If Law does not permit service of notice while directing investigation by Director General under Competition Act, a need of notice cannot be pressed at the stage warranting further investigation.
Delhi High Court while disposing writ filed against order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) held that where law does not permit issue of notice to the affected party before directing investigation to be conducted by the Director General (DG), a need of notice before directing further investigation cannot be pressed upon.

There is no difference between directions for investigation or direction for further investigation, since any further investigation in relation to particular matter means investigation in continuation of the earlier investigation as carried out by the DG.
In the instant matter, information was filed alleging abuse of dominant position, pursuant whereto CCI directed enquiry to be carried out by DG. The Competition Act, 2002 (Act) empowers CCI to enquire into any alleged contravention of the provisions relating to anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position in any of the manner as described therein. An enquiry can be initiated by CCI either on its own or on receiving any information from any person or a reference made to it by the Central Government or the State Government or a statutory authority. CCI once forms a prima facie opinion that the provisions has been contravened, it can direct the DG to investigate into the matter. If DG concludes that there is no contravention as alleged in the information, the informant gets an opportunity to confute findings as recorded by the DG.

DG in the instant case concluded that there was no contravention of the provisions, as alleged. CCI allowed the application filed by Informant to cross examine witness whose evidence was recorded by the DG in reference to questions relevant. This permission, as granted by the CCI was the subject matter of challenge on the ground that prior to allowing the application, an opportunity should have been given to the Petitioner and by not doing so the order amounted to violation of the principle of natural justice.
 
The High Court rejected the contentions raised by the Petitioner on the ground that at the time when CCI considers DG’s report of the Director General, CCI is not required to serve notice upon the person against whom information or reference, as the case may be, has been has been moved.
The Court also pointed out that even an accused in a criminal case is not entitled to a hearing before a Magistrate passes an order for further investigation in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, a person against whom information is given or a reference is made before the CCI cannot be placed on a footing higher than that of an accused in a criminal trial.

South Asia LPG Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCI and Ors. 
(Delhi High Court, 03.09.2013)