Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed by petitioner challenging an order passed by the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’), the respondent, dismissing the petitioner’s application before it due to lack of substantive evidence, challenging the merger between TATA SIA Airlines Limited and Air India Limited alleging cartelization and bid rigging, Sanjeev Narula, J., dismissed the petition and held that the petition was filed based on unfounded allegations and malicious intent.
The Court stated that “This case presents no deviation from a pattern of making unsubstantiated and reckless allegations, similar to those observed in the in the afore-noted order. These allegations, which are not only unsupported by evidence but also seem to be driven by malice, undermine the integrity of the judicial process. The claims are made without any regard for truth and appear to be designed to manipulate or mislead. This approach not only discredits the Petitioner’s credibility but also burdens the legal system unnecessarily. Therefore, in the Court’s view, given the absence of any substantiated claims and the apparent malicious intent behind the allegations, the present petition lacks merit.”
The matter was called out twice, however, none appeared on behalf of petitioner, so the Court proceeded to hear the matter with assistance from respondent.
The petitioner had filed an application under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the ‘Act’) before the CCI, challenging the merger between TATA SIA Airlines Limited and Air India Limited, alleging cartelization and bid rigging. However, the CCI dismissed the application due to lack of evidence and closed the application as per Section 26(2) of the Act vide order dated 15-12-2023 (‘impugned order’).
The petitioner filed the instant petition against the impugned order contending that the CCI had closed his application without conducting inquiry.
The Court observed that the petition contained several unsubstantiated and scandalous allegations against the Prime Minister and Chief Justice of India, none of which were supported by any documentary evidence.
It was contended that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging the same impugned order, which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 31-05-2024, with liberty to approach the appropriate authority. The Court said that despite the liberty to approach the appropriate authority, the petitioner chose to file the instant petition and to establish the maintainability of the petition, the petitioner had made scandalous remarks against the Judge who had issued the order dated 31-05-2024, claiming that the judge harboured personal animosity against him and had provided false information.
The petitioner also alleged that the Registry was curtailing his rights on account of his caste.
The respondent submitted that by an order dated 03-07-2024, in a different and unconnected matter filed by the petitioner, the Division Bench of the Court had instructed the local Station House Officer (SHO) to monitor the petitioner, in terms with Sectio 100 Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
The Court observed that in instant case the petitioner had made allegations without any regard for truth and has been filed with the intention to malign and mislead. The Court said that the petitioner’s credibility was questionable and such matters add to the unnecessary burden of the legal system.
The Court, therefore, dismissed the petition, due to lack of merit, unsubstantiated allegations and malicious intent.
[Captain Deepak Kumar v. Competition Commission of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4711, decided on 05-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocates for the Respondent: Manu Chaturvedi, Azeem S., Akhil Kulshrestha, Yashika Nagpal, Anjana Gosain, Nippun Sharma, Advocates
