Abuse of dominant position--In judicial review appellants would be held to standard of fairness as also duty not to discriminate--Appellants cannot resist imposition of standards of fairness and duty to avoid discriminatory practices when a specialized forum has been created by Parliament under Competition Act, 2002.

JUDGMENT :

K.M. Joseph, J.

1. The Civil Appeal is directed against the Order passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), by which Order, the Tribunal affirmed the findings and conclusion recorded by the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCI’) on various facets of abuse of dominant position. The abuse of dominant position was ascribed to the appellants. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The second respondent had provided information to the CCI which the CCI proceeded to consider and it found the abuse of dominant position by the appellants.

3. The appellants have filed Interlocutory Application, viz., I.A. No. 66587 of 2017 being an application seeking permission to take additional grounds. Parties exchanged pleadings in the interlocutory application. We have allowed the application seeking permission to urge the new grounds.

4. When the matter came up on 16.09.2022 before a Bench of two learned Judges, the Court felt that since modification of order dated 03.08.2017 was sought, it would be appropriate that these matters are heard by a Bench of three learned Judges. It is, accordingly, that the matter stood posted before a Bench of three learned Judges.

5. The principal bone of contention of the appellants in the I.A. 66587 of 2017 appears to be that Coal India Limited, the first appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIL’) being a monopoly created by a statute and what is more important, geared and duty bound to achieve the objects declared in Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India and the second appellant, Western Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary company of the first appellant cannot be bound by the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). In other words, having regard to the very object and purpose for which it was brought into being and the law surrounding such a body, applying the Act would produce such anomalous results as would stultify the sublime goal enshrined in Article 39(b) as also the statute under which CIL witnessed its birth. Since it was found that there were proceedings pending before the Commission/Tribunal wherein a similar question would directly arise, transfer petitions were filed to call for such proceedings to this Court. It is hence, that the Transfer petitions which we are dealing with came to be allowed. This is however, on the understanding that the Court would not go into the merits of the individual cases but would confine itself to ruling on the question of law raised by the appellants, viz., the applicability of the Act to them.

6. We have heard Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel, ably assisted by Shri Yaman Verma, learned Counsel. Shri Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel, also appears on behalf of the appellant. Also, we have heard Shri N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General, on behalf of CCI and Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the second respondent in the Appeal/Application. We have further heard learned Counsel appearing in the transferred cases.

SUBMISSIONS OF TH