Lanusungkum Jamir, J.

1. W.P.(C) No. 24 of 2013, W.P.(C) No. 76 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 90 of 2013 involves the same question of facts with similar reliefs sought, these petitions are being disposed by this common judgment and order. The Government of Mizoram invited Expression of Interest (EOI) through the Director, Institutional, Finance State Lottery on 20.12.2011 for appointment of Lottery Distributors and Selling Agents for the lotteries organized by the Government of Mizoram. The Mizoram Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2011 was framed in terms of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998. Pursuant to the EOI of 20.12.2011, four firms/companies were selected as distributors to operate lotteries as per the provisions of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and the Mizoram Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2011. M/s. Tamarai Technologies Private Ltd. (who is the respondent No. 3 in all the 3 writ petitions) filed an information/complaint before the Competition Commission of India under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 alleging that the Government of Mizoram (petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 24 of 2014) had violated the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 and that M/s. Teesta Distributors, M/s. N.V. International (petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 76 of 2013) and M/s. Summit Online Trades Solutions Private Ltd. (petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 90 of 2013) are directly or indirectly associated with each other and have been involved in collusive bidding by quoting identical rates for Online and Paper Lotteries against EOI dated December 20, 2011 and thereby forming a cartel with regard to selection of distributors in lottery business of the State of Mizoram. On receipt of the information/complaint, the Competition Commission of India passed an order dated 7.6.2012 under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 where it had formed an opinion that there was a prima facie case about the existence of a cartel amongst the bidders and there was contravention of the provision of Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act and the Director General was directed to cause an investigation into the matter and to submit a report within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the receipt of the order dated 7.6.2012. In the order dated 7.6.2012, the Competition Commission of India was also of the opinion that no case was made out for violation of the provision of Section 4 of the Competition Act of 2002 (hereinafter the Act of 2002). The Director General, after completion of the investigation submitted its report before the Competition Commission of India on 17.1.2013 wherein all the allegations leveled against the 4 (four) firms/companies were found to be correct and came to a finding that they had indulged in bid rigging by forming a cartel and thereafter, came to the conclusion that there was violation of Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Competition Act of 2002. Thereafter the Competition Commission on 12.2.2013 after considering the report of the Director General, issued an order dated 12.2.2013 in case No. 24/2012 directing the respondents therein to file their reply/objection within 2 (two) weeks of receipt of the record. It further decided to hear the parties on 20.3.2013 at 10:30 AM. Being aggrieved, the aforesaid 3 (three) writ petitions have been filed.

2. Heard Mr. B. Deb, learned Advocate General, Mizoram in W.P.(C) No. 24 of 2014, Mr. I. Lahiri in W.P.(C) No. 76 of 2013 as well as Mr. S. Dutta in W.P.(C) No. 90 of 2012 for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Deputy Director (Law) and Mr. A.H. Barbhuiya, learned CGC for the Competition Commission of India who are arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in all the writ petitions and Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Tamarai Technologies Private Ltd. (informant/complainant) in all the 3 (three) writ petitions.

3. W.P.(C) No. 24 o