An order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act is administrative, only initiating an investigation without affecting parties' rights.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to set aside the order dated 03.10.2019 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 26(1) of the COMPETITION ACT , 2002 in Case No. 30 of 2019 and to set aside order dated 04.10.2019 passed by Respondent No.1 directing the parties to appear in Case No. 30 of 2019.

2. Heard Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for Ms. Rubaina Khatoon, learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. K. Vivek Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for Ms. Neha Pandey, learned counsel for 1st respondent and Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for Mr. Sriram Polali, learned counsel for 2nd respondent.

Facts of the Case:-

3. Petitioner No.1 is a company exclusively involved in the maintenance, financing, development and operation of Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad (RGIA) by virtue of a concession agreement dated 20.12.2004 entered into between itself and the Government of India. Clause 3.2.2 of the said concession agreement granted exclusive rights to the 1st Petitioner to grant third party service providers rights to carry out activities and business to maintain and operate RGIA. Respondent No. 2 is one such third party service provider which provides Maintenance, Repair & Overhaul (MRO) services including Line Maintenance Services to aircrafts landing at RGIA. According to the 2nd Respondent, Line Maintenance Services can only be provided from the premises of RGIA.

4. Pursuant to the concession agreement, Petitioner No. 1 entered into a license agreement dated 20.12.2011 with the Respondent No. 2 granting an area of 96.04 Sq. Mts. at RGIA for Setting up and operating Airline Engineering Maintenance Office to provide line maintenance services for a period of three years. The said license agreement dated 20.12.2011 was extended vide agreement dated 28.11.2014 for a period of five years until 22.03.2019.

5. 1st Petitioner addressed a letter dated 22.02.2019 to Respondent No.2 informing that the license agreement dated 28.11.2014 cannot be extended as space occupied by second respondent was required for ongoing expansion works at RGIA. 2nd Respondent addressed an email dated 25.02.2019 requesting the 1st Petitioner to extend the license agreement dated 28.11.2014 which was due to expire on 22.03.2019 by another five years. 1st Petitioner replied to the said email by referring to the letter dated 22.02.2019 stating that the license agreement cannot be extended. Subsequently, another email dated 11.03.2019 was addressed by 2nd Respondent to 1st Petitioner requesting the extension of the license agreement by another five years. 2nd Respondent also addressed letters to Ministry of Civil Aviation seeking their intervention in the matter.

6. On 27.06.2019, Petitioner No.1 addressed a letter to Respondent No. 2 asking it to vacate the premises licensed to it by 30.06.2019. Respondent No. 2 addressed another letter dated 28.06.2019 requesting Petitioner No. 1 to withdraw its letters dated 22.02.2019 and 27.06.2019. However, the license agreement was not extended.

7. On 01.07.2019, Respondent No. 2 filed W.P. No. 13298 of 2019 seeking to set aside the letter dated 27.06.2019 on the ground of it being arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice. Respondent No. 2 also sought a direction to allow it carry on its business of providing Line Maintenance Services from the premises of RGIA. In the said writ petition. Respondent No. 2 filed interlocutory applications I.A. No. 1 of 2019 and I.A. No. 2 of 2019 seeking interim reliefs against Petitioner No. 1 to allow it to carry on business at the premises admeasuring 96.04 Sq. Mts. at RGIA and to suspend the letter dated 27.06.2019 which directed Respondent No. 2 to vacate the premises admeasuring 96.04 Sq. Mts, at RGIA respectively. This Court vide order dated 02.07.2019 dismissed the said Interlocutory Applications on the ground that the relationship between Petitioner No. 1 a