Competition Commission's discretion to investigate new complaints under Section 19(1) prevails despite historical complaints' dismissal, emphasizing that administrative orders do not necessitate a hearing prior to investigation.

JUDGMENT ( Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.) :

1 Heard learned senior counsel for the respective parties.

2 By this petition, the Petitioner seeks setting-aside of the orders dated 1^st July 2025, firstly uploaded on the website of the Respondent No.1-Competition Commission of India (`the CCI’) on 1<sup>st</sup> July 2025 and thereafter allegedly/purportedly replaced by the second order of the same date uploaded on the website of the said Authority on 2<sup>nd</sup> July 2025, passed by the CCI in Case No.32/2024. The Petitioner also seeks a direction to the CCI to re-examine the purported information/allegations submitted against it, in Case No.32/2024 afresh in exercise of its powers under Section 19(1) read with Section 26(2-A) of the Competition Act of 2002 (`the Act’).

3 Facts in brief are as under:

The Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act inter alia engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of paints, coatings, home decor products, bath fittings and providing related services. The Respondent No.1- Competition Commission of India (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as `CCI’) is an Authority established under Section 7 of the Competition Act, 2002 (as amended). The Respondent No.2 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, engaged in the manufacture of man-made fibers, chemicals and is a new entrant in the decorative paints market in India (around March 2024), under the brand name of ‘Birla Opus Paints’.

4 The proceeding before the CCI stems from the information received by the CCI from the Respondent No.2, sometime in December 2024, under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act, alleging therein, that the Petitioner has abused its dominance in the decorative paints market.

5 It is the Petitioner’s case, that they received an email addressed by a media house requesting a comment in relation to the information received by the CCI from the Respondent No.2. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner by its letter dated 5^th June 2025 addressed to the Respondent No.1, offered an explanation pertaining to the purported allegations made by Respondent No.2 to the CCI. The Petitioner specifically clarified that in an earlier Case No. 36/2019, initiated by JSW Paints Private Limited (`JSW’) and Sri Balaji Traders (`Balaji’), based on similar information, alleging abuse of dominance and anti-competitive vertical agreements, the CCI had found no evidence of abuse of dominance by the Petitioner despite a thorough investigation. The Petitioner also requested for an opportunity to present its case and supporting evidence through an oral hearing. According to the Petitioner, the CCI in its order dated 8^th September 2022, found no merit in the information application made by JSW on identical grounds as made by the Petitioner and accordingly disposed of the same. Thus, according to the Petitioner, under the provisions of Section 26(2-A) of the Act, the CCI was jurisdictionally barred from entertaining the Respondent No.2’s complaint on the same or substantially the same facts and issues, once the same allegations made by JSW and Balaji were already decided by the CCI in its previous orders.

6 The Respondent No.1 by its letter dated 6^th June 2025, responded to the Petitioner’s letter of 5^th June 2025 asking the Petitioner to file an application under the relevant Regulation for consideration by the CCI. Accordingly, the Petitioner by its letter dated 9^th June 2025 provided the CCI with the media article, which reported the information vis-à-vis the information given by the Respondent No.2 to CCI.

7 It is the Petitioner’s case, that the CCI, without affording any hearing to the Petitioner, published the first impugned order directing the Director General (“DG”) of the CCI to cause an investigation into the matter and submit an investigation report within a period of 90 days from the receipt of the said order. It was made clear that at this prima facie stage, the CCI, in the light of the material available on record, found no reason to hear the P