Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J:

1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 2nd September, 2013 (as corrected on 3rd September, 2013) of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.4602/2013 filed by the appellant. The said writ petition was filed, impugning the order dated 1st July, 2013 of the respondent no.1 Competition Commission of India (CCI) (passed in exercise of powers under Section 26(7) of The Competition Act, 2002 and referring back the complaint/information filed by the respondent No.3 East India Petroleum Private Limited under Section 19(1) of the Act to the respondent no.2 Director General (DG), CCI for allowing the respondent no.3/informant to cross examine the witnesses of the appellant) on the ground that the said order was passed without issuing notice to and without hearing the appellant. Summons issued to the witnesses of the appellant for cross examination, in pursuance to the said order of the CCI, were also impugned in the writ petition.

2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited (2010) 10 SCC 744, no notice of hearing was required to be given and the appellant was not required to be heard by the respondent no.1 CCI before passing the order on 1st July, 2013.

3. Though this appeal came up first before this Court on 18th November, 2013 but was taken up for hearing on 4th March, 2014 when notice thereof was issued and the operation of the ‘impugned order’ was stayed. The respondent no.3/informant on the next date of hearing i.e. 15th April, 2014 informed this Court that the appellant, while securing the interim order, had not brought to the notice of the Court that in the interregnum the cross examination etc. of the witnesses of the appellant in terms of the order dated 1st July, 2013 of the respondent no.1 CCI had already been carried out between 9th and 19th September, 2013 and that the appellant also, in CM No.19277/2013 filed along with this appeal, had categorically stated that it was not pressing for any stay of proceedings. In the face of this position, this Court on 15th April, 2014 vacated the interim order earlier granted on 4th March, 2014.

4. It was also the contention of the respondent no.3/informant on 15th April, 2014 that since the cross examination ordered vide order dated 1st July, 2013 which was impugned in the writ petition had already been carried out, this appeal had become infructuous. The counsel for the appellant however opposed and the matter was posted for hearing on 21st August, 2014.

5. On 21st August, 2014, the counsel for the appellant informed that though the witnesses of the appellant had been cross examined by the respondent no.3/informant in terms of the order dated 1st July, 2013 but the respondent no.2 DG was yet to submit its report to the respondent no.1 CCI. The counsel further contended that since the Competition Act is still at is nascent stage, the issue as arises for consideration in this appeal be decided since it repeatedly arises before the respondent no.1 CCI. It was his further contention that the appeal cannot be said to have become infructuous because if the appellant succeeds and it is held that the appellant ought to have been heard before the respondent no.1 CCI, in exercise of powers under Section 26(7) referred back the matter to the respondent no.2 DG for allowing such cross examination, the entire proceedings conducted by the respondent no.2 DG thereafter would be non est and of no avail. Though we suggested to the counsel for the appellant that since, what was directed vide order dated 1st July, 2013 of the respondent no.1 CCI which is impugned in these proceedings has already happened, we can dispose of this appeal by observing that the appellant shall be entitled to raise the issue as raised in this appeal in the remedy if any taken by the appellant against the order of