The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of a judicial member does not invalidate the orders passed by the Competition Commission of India, as per Section 15 of the Competition Act, 2002.

ORDER :

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the orders dated 23.04.2019 and 08.05.2019 (hereafter 'the impugned orders') passed by the respondent (Competition Commission of India -- CCI) in Case No. 12 of 2017 titled as "Nagrik Chetna Manch v. SAAR IT Resources Private Limited and Ors". By the order dated 23.04.2019, CCI adjourned the final hearing of the said case to 08.05.2019. On 08.05.2019, CCI heard detailed arguments and reserved the matter for judgment.

2. The petitioner contends that the impugned orders were passed without the presence of a judicial member and therefore, were in contravention of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & Ors. v. Competition Commission of India & Anr., W.P.(C) 11467 of 2018. The petitioner contends that the impugned orders are adjudicatory in nature and hence, the presence of a judicial member was mandatory as per the law.

3. The petitioner is a company which is engaged in the business of topographical land survey, differential GPS (DGPS)/GPS survey, GIS, civil consultancy and supervision of quality control in dam projects.

4. In March, 2017, Nagrik Chetna Manch, filed an information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter 'the Act') before CCI alleging cartelization among the petitioner and certain other parties (hereafter 'the Opposite Parties'), who bid for Tender No. 338 of 2015 floated by Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) for conducting trees census within the PMC jurisdiction area, using GIS and GPS Technology, in contravention of Section 3(3)(d) of the Act.

5. CCI considered the information as filed under Section 19(1) (a) of the Act and passed a prima facie order dated 03.10.2017 under Section 26(1) of the Act, directing the Director General (DG) to conduct an investigation in the said matter.

6. On 20.09.2019, Director General submitted a report to CCI (hereafter 'the DG report') concluding that the petitioner and the other Opposite Parties as named in Case No. 12 of 2017, have acted in an alleged collusive arrangement while bidding for the Tender No. 338 of 2015.

7. The report was considered by CCI on 23.01.2019 and forwarded to the parties, vide order dated 23.01.2019. The parties were directed to file replies/objections to the DG report by 28.02.2019 and to appear for a final hearing before CCI on 27.03.2019.

8. The petitioner filed its replies/objections to the report with CCI on 25.02.2019. One of the Opposite Parties in Case No. 12 of 2017 sought adjournment of the hearing and CCI, vide order dated 07.03.2019, adjourned the final hearing to 25.04.2019.

9. On 23.04.2019, CCI vide the impugned order provided a last opportunity to some of the Opposite Parties (not including the petitioner) to submit copies of their financial statements by 03.05.2019, failing which they would render themselves liable under Section 43 of the Act. Upon request of one of the Opposite Parties, the final hearing was further adjourned to 08.05.2019. Two members and the Chairperson of CCI were present when the impugned order was passed.

10. On 08.05.2019, the Opposite Parties made their respective detailed submissions in the matter. After hearing the said submission, CCI decided to pass an appropriate order in due course. CCI also granted liberty to the parties to file their respective synopsis of arguments within seven days. On the said date, two members and the Chairperson of CCI were present.

11. Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the decision of this Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & Ors. v. Competition Commission of India & Anr. (supra) and drew the attention of this Court to paragraph 148 of the said decision, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had held that at all times, when adjudicatory orders (especially final orders) are made by CCI, the presence and participation of the judicial member is necessary. He further pointed out that the Cour