Judicial intervention: IHC reinforces CCP’s autonomy in conducting probes without threat

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has reinforced the Competition Commission of Pakistan’s autonomy in conducting preliminary inquiries without threat of immediate judicial intervention.

In this regard, the Islamabad High Court, presided over by Justice Babar Sattar, has dismissed a petition filed by Strawberry Sports Management (Private) Limited that challenged an inquiry report issued by the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP).

The inquiry was initiated to investigate potential anti-competitive practices by the Pakistan Hockey Federation (PHF) regarding its refusal to grant a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for organizing a junior hockey league in Pakistan.

The court held that the CCP’s inquiry report, conducted under Section 37(2) of the Competition Act, 2010, does not qualify as an appealable order under Section 41 of the Act. Justice Sattar clarified that the inquiry report serves as an administrative document intended to outline preliminary findings and cannot be subjected to judicial review in the same way as formal adjudicatory orders.

Strawberry Sports Management contended that the inquiry failed to provide sufficient notice or an opportunity for the petitioner to present evidence and defend its position. These claims hinged on the assertion that the CCP’s approach breached the principles of natural justice as mandated by Article 10A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing.

Justice Babar Sattar rejected these arguments, stating that the CCP’s role during the inquiry phase is not adjudicatory but investigative. The court affirmed that the procedural safeguards guaranteed by Article 10A apply primarily to formal proceedings and not to preliminary inquiries.

The judge further noted that the inquiry report is designed to facilitate the CCP's decision on whether to proceed with further investigation or action and does not constitute a final ruling affecting the rights of the parties involved.

The court also examined the substance of PHF's refusal to grant an NOC for the junior hockey league. It found that the PHF’s decision did not amount to an abuse of a dominant position under the Competition Act, as there was no existing market for junior hockey leagues in Pakistan. Additionally, the court pointed out that PHF had no statutory obligation to issue NOCs to private event organizers, which undermined the petitioner’s claims of anti-competitive conduct.

The CCP maintained that its inquiry was conducted in accordance with its statutory mandate to identify and prevent anti-competitive practices. The commission argued that preliminary inquiries are designed to gather facts and assess whether formal proceedings are warranted. The CCP’s legal team stressed that issuing an inquiry report is an initial administrative step that does not carry the legal weight of an order requiring judicial appeal.

The court agreed with this interpretation, highlighting that permitting judicial review of preliminary inquiry reports would disrupt the regulatory process and impede the CCP’s ability to function effectively as a watchdog for competitive practices.

This judgment reinforces the CCP’s autonomy in conducting preliminary inquiries without the threat of immediate judicial intervention. It clarifies the scope of Section 37 of the Competition Act, distinguishing between the non-appealable nature of inquiry reports and the formal, appealable orders issued after the completion of a regulatory proceeding.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024