1. Since all these Writ Petitions involve one and the same issue, they are being disposed of in common.

2. Before going into the common question that arises for consideration in the above cases, the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the Writ Petitions shall be discussed separately.

3. W.P. No. 26488 of 2013 is filed by one NISSAN Motors India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Nissan Motors”). It is a fully owned subsidiary company of Nissan International Holdings, Netherlands, incorporated in the year 2005 in India; and it was only in 2010, it commenced commercial production of engines and vehicles from Oragadam Plant, Tamilnadu. It sold the first Indian manufactured car on July 23, 2010. It is a new entrant in the Indian car market.

4. One Mr. Shamsher Kataria (Informant), who is impleaded as the 3rd respondent in the above Writ Petition appeared to have filed information under Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on January 17, 2011 and further supplemented on January 27, 2011 against only three car companies, viz., (1) Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. (2) Volkswagen India Ltd. And (3) Fiat India Automobiles Ltd., alleging anti-competitive methods/agreements and abuse of dominant position by the said three car manufacturers, which is an infraction of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. After receiving the above said Information from the Informant, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), the 1st respondent herein, on the basis of the merits of the said complaint, passed an order under Section 26(1) of the Act in its meeting held on February 24, 2011 forming an opinion on the existence of prima facie case as detailed in the information as against the said three car manufacturers. A copy of the said order was communicated to the Director General, the 2nd respondent herein, vide letter dated March 8, 2011 along with a copy of the Information and in the said order passed by the 1st respondent, it was further directed that the 2nd respondent ought to submit its investigation report (DG Report) within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of the said order. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent applied for extension on several occasions for submission of the Report. Further, the 1st respondent ought to have, in considering the above said requests for extension, considered the sufficiency of the reasons for extension and permitted it by such period as it considered reasonable. When the Act read with the Regulations lay down that the Report ought to be submitted within a period of 60 days, the 1st respondent was not justified in granting nine extensions due to which the Report was submitted after a fifteen month delay. The 2nd respondent filed the undated report on July 31, 2012 or thereafter. On the DG Report, a conclusion is arrived that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of the Act.

5. According to the petitioner/Nissan Motors, the 2nd respondent is bound to submit his Report within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of the prima facie order and such period may not be ordinarily extendable. Further, the 1st respondent’s order, dated April 26, 2011 referring to the 2nd respondent’s note, dated April 19, 2011 requesting widening of the scope of investigation to include other manufacturers, is completely silent on the reasoning for including other car manufacturers. The said note of the 2nd respondent was not served upon the petitioner nor was it made a part of the record of the case. It is further contended by the petitioner that the 1st respondent in its order dated April 26,2011 has gone to the extent of observing in its order that the 2nd respondent’s investigation in any case need not be confined to the parties mentioned in the Information and that there was no need for the 2nd respondent to obtain orders of the 1st respondent on each individual case. Such widening of the powers of the 2nd respondent as observed by the 1st re