S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

Facts

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Competition Commission of India (“CCI/ Appellant”) against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 22.04.2016 passed in W.P. (C) No. 11411 of 2015. The question that needs to be addressed is whether a person summoned for investigation (and whose statement may be recorded) has the right to be represented by an advocate merely because the Authority investigating is empowered to take evidence.

2. The facts are that the CCI received information, indicating existence of a bid-rigging cartel in the Conveyor Belt Sector in India. On 06.11.2013, based on the information, the CCI found that there was an apparent prima facie case of contravention of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter “the Act”) and in suo-motu Case No. 06 of 2013 directed the Director General (“DG”) to undertake an exhaustive investigation into the matter against the parties for all kinds of violation of the Act, under an order issued under section 26(1) of the Act.

3. Pursuant to the CCI’s order, the DG on 27.05.2015, issued Notice to Oriental Rubber Industries Private Limited (“Respondent”) mentioning that its o