The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of a person to be accompanied by an advocate during investigations by the DG, when evidence is being collected or recorded, cannot be taken away, considering the far-reaching powers of the DG and the drastic consequences of an investigation.

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 office was conducting investigation in the case and in terms of the powers vested in the DG as per Sections 36(2) and 41(2) of the Act and asking the respondent to furnish information which inter-alia included information with respect to the company and its business activities, plant addresses, names of the entire sales and marketing team and other persons responsible for tendering/bidding for contracts, explanation in detail with respect to process of supply of fabric conveyor belts in different market segments, etc.

4. On 04.06.2015, in furtherance of the above Notice, the respondent requested CCI for permission to inspect the records (of the case) in terms of Regulation 50 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009. The respondent stated that it was not privy to the facts in respect of Case No. 06 of 2013 initiated by the CCI and thus sought the requisite permission to inspect the relevant records. On 10.06.2015, the respondent again wrote to the CCI seeking permission as requested in their letter dated 04.06.2015 for inspection of records of the case.

5. On 18.06.2015, the DG, in furtherance of the Notice dated 27.05.2015 rectified certain requirements of the said Notice and issued a show cause notice seeking explanation from the Respondent as to why their acts and conduct should not be treated in contravention of Section 3 of the Act. The DG, keeping in mind adherence to strict timeline, refused to grant extension of time to the Respondent for submission of remaining information/details. The Respondents were directed to submit the information/details latest by 30.06.2015.

6. Request for inspection of records was subsequently made again on behalf of the Respondent on 23.06.2015. On 30.06.2015, the CCI replied to the Respondent’s request letters dated 23.06.2015 for inspection of record stating that the information of the case file was confidential and the application for inspection could not be allowed. The Respondent on 13.08.2015 vide letter to the CCI stated that it had submitted all the relevant data that was available with them in connection with the investigation as required by the DG.

7. It transpires from the record that the DG subsequently called for further information from the Respondent and there were a series of correspondences exchanged between the Respondent and the CCI. Thereafter, the DG on 23.11.2015, issued summons under Section 41(2) read with Section 36(2) of the Act. In terms of provisions in the Act and regulations framed under it, the DG summoned the?respondent under Section 36(2) to give evidence since there was?information that the Respondent had knowledge of certain facts relating to the matter.

8. Aggrieved by the summons, the Respondent approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 11411/2015, seeking