A.V. SESHA SAI, J.

1. Since these two writ petitions are similar and arise out of a common order passed by the Competition Commission of India and as the contentions are also the same, this Court deems it appropriate and apposite to dispose of these two writ petitions by way of this common order.

2. Challenge in these two writ petitions is to the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the Competition Commission of India/second respondent herein in Case No. 47 and 48 of 2017 under sub-Section (2) of Section 26 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter called the Act).

3. Petitioners herein, alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act on the part of the National Institute of Indian Technology Limited/third respondent herein, approached the second respondent-Competition Commission of India, by way of filing the above said cases under Section 19 of the Act.

4. When the matters are taken up, a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petitions is taken by Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for the third respondent and Smt. Sundari, appearing for the respondent No. 2, by contending that in view of effective and efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioners under Sections 53-A and 53-B of the Act, the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

5. Emphatically, resisting the said submissions, it is maintained by Sri Major Pankaj Roy, petitioner in W.P. No. 42223 of 2017, who is appearing as party-in-person and Sri P. Ravi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 43744 of 2017 that despite the availability of the said alternative remedy, the present writ petitions are maintainable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the impugned orders are violative of the principles of natural justice and completely bereft of fair play and they directly effect the fundamental rights of the petitioners herein and that the alternative remedy is not a bar for this Court to entertain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Elaborating the said contention, it is submitted that the learned counsel who appeared for the opposite party is a Managing Associate of Competition Law at TT & A Advocates and Solicitors and have their office at 1114-1115, DLF Tower B, Jasola, New Delhi-110025; that TT & A works in collaboration with Mr. Vinod Dhall, who worked as First Chairman of the second respondent/Competition Commission of India till 2008; that he set up the framework of policies, draft regulations, analytical models and organized initial training; that Mr. Dhall by virtue of his background has an insider knowledge of respondent No. 2; that Mr. Dhall had represented FX Enterprise Solutions India Private Limited, one of the winning parties in Hyundai case; that the third respondent submitted its response through Mr. Dhall before the second respondent on 10.10.2017.

7. It is further submitted that after hearing the cases on 12.10.2017, but before the second respondent Commission passed the impugned orders on 28.11.2017, petitioner received a letter from the Office of M/s. K.K. Sharma, Law Offices, who was the first Director General of the second respondent/Commission and built a successful practice, representing clients before the second respondent and that the petitioner got astonished at first as to how Mr. K.K. Sharma obtained his address, but quickly realized that he would have got the petitioners address from the second respondent because of his influence and that the said letter was received by the petitioner in W.P. No. 42223 of 2017 on 25.10.12017; that by way of Ex. P.16 Emails the said aspects were brought to the notice of the second respondent, but no reply was received; that response submitted by the third respondent through Mr. Dhall had vital information and that certain information contained therein was not furnished to the petitioners and that the said info