V.K. Jain, J.

1. The petitioners before this Court filed separate applications under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MRTP Act’), seeking compensation on the ground that they had suffered loss and damage as a result of the monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice carried out by the concerned respondent. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondents in the said case that such applications were not maintainable, in the absence of separate proceedings to prove the alleged monopolistic restrictive or unfair trade practices. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Saurabh Prakash Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 228 the Competition Appellate Tribunal, Delhi held that in the absence of separate proceedings alleging unfair, monopolistic or restrictive trade practice, an application for compensation under Section 12B of the MRTP Act was not maintainable. Being aggrieved from the said order of the Competition Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners are before this Court by way of separate writ petitions.

2. The respondents have contended as a preliminary objection that since an appeal to the Supreme Court is provided against an order passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal, a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not an appropriate remedy.

3. Section 66 of the Competition Act, which came into force on 1.9.2009, to the extent it is relevant for these writ petitions, reads as under:

“66. Repeal and saving. – (1) The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (54 of 1969) is hereby repealed and the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission established under sub-section(1) of section 5 of the said Act (hereinafter referred to as the repealed Act) shall stand dissolved:

(1A)The repeal of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (54 of 1969) shall, however, not affect,-

…. …. …. …. ….

(b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Act so repealed; or …. …. …. …. ….

(d) any proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, confiscation or punishment as aforesaid, and any such proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, confiscation or punishment may be imposed or made as if that Act had not been repealed.]

[Explanation. – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that all cases referred to in this sub-section, sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) shall be deemed to include all applications made for the losses or damages under section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (54 of 1969) as it stood before its repeal.]

…. …. …. …. ….

“(3)All cases pertaining to monopolistic trade practices or restrictive trade practices pending (including such cases, in which any unfair trade practice has also been alleged), before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission shall, [on the commencement of the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2009], stand transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and shall be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act as if that Act had not been repealed.]

[Explanation. – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that all cases referred to in this sub-section, sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) shall be deemed to include all applications made for the losses or damages under section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (54 of 1969) as it stood before its repeal.]

…. …. …. …. ….

[(5) All cases pertaining to unfair trade practices referred to in clause (x) of sub-section (1) of section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (54 of 1969) and pending before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission on or before the commencement of this Act shall, on such commence