A three-member CCP bench said that upon conclusion of the enquiry under the Competition Act and in pursuance of the provisions of Section 37(4) of the Act, the commission may initiate proceedings under Section 30, where it is in the public interest, so to do (emphasis added).
Hence, from the language used in the Act, it is clear that the intent of the legislature behind the Act that is to create a level-playing field in order to enhance economic efficiencies and to protect consumers from the anti-competitive behaviour is that the commission has to proceed in public interest.
Thus, the commission is entrusted with the responsibility of looking after the interest of general public vis-à-vis anti-competitive conduct, and to create a level-playing field, in order to enhance economic efficiency in all spheres of commercial and economic activity and that too in public interest.
The proceedings before the commission are inquisitorial in nature and not adversarial; as the commission is carrying out its functions in public interest, the CCP Bench said.
The legislature, in all its wisdom, therefore, carefully crafted the framework under the Act, and we deem it appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 33 of the Act in this regard, in particular, clauses (e) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act, the CCP bench said.
Bare perusal of the above provision leaves no doubt that the legislature, in all its wisdom, has used the word "proceeding" along with "enquiry" in Section 33 (1) mentioned above.
This means that the commission, even after initiation of proceedings under Section 30 of the Act retains the power to investigate or gather evidence, if it deems necessary in public interest.
This intent of the legislature to empower the commission with the inquisitorial/investigative authority during the proceedings under Section 30 of the Act is further evident from the provisions of Section 34(1) of the Act, the CCP added.