AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this application, petitioner seeks recall of order dated 15.11.2016 of this Court and a direction that the subject Writ Petition be restored.
Petitioner had, inter alia, filed the present Writ Petition impugning order dated 13.07.2015 passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
The petitioner thereafter also filed an Appeal impugning the same order before the Competition Appellate Tribunal.
The Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal by order dated 17.10.2016 on the ground that petitioner could not
have availed of two remedies of impugning the same order; one of the Writ Petition and another of an Appeal before the Competition Appellate
Tribunal.
The Competition Appellate Tribunal, in its order of 17.10.2016, clarified that in case the petitioner were to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to
file an Appeal under Section 53(B), then a fresh Appeal could be filed and petitioner would also be entitled to file an application seeking condition of
delay along with the fresh Appeal.
Consequent to order dated 17.10.2016, an application was filed by the petitioner being CM No.42089/2016 seeking leave of this Court to withdraw
this Writ Petition with liberty to file an Appeal before the Competition Appellate Tribunal in terms of its order dated 17.10.2016.
By the subject order dated 15.11.2016, this application was allowed and this Court directed as under:-
 “***** ***** *****
In view of the above, the application is allowed. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner may approach the Competition Appellate
Tribunal by way of filing a fresh appeal.
It is clarified that this court has not examined the maintainability or otherwise of an appeal before the Competition Appellate Tribunal against the order
dated 13.01.2015 and the grounds of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay. If such an appeal is filed and an objection with regard to its
maintainability and condonation of the delay is taken by the respondent, the Competition Appellate Tribunal would be at liberty to consider the same in
accordance with law.
It is further clarified that in case the Competition Appellate Tribunal returns a finding that the appeal is not maintainable against the order dated
13.01.2015, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail such remedies, against the order dated 13.01.2015, as may be available in law, including, inter-alia
filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.â€
After the order of 15.11.2016, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the Competition Appellate Tribunal. By order dated 03.04.2017, the Competition
Appellate Tribunal, on the application of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay, refused to condone the delay. Additionally, the Appellate Tribunal
has noticed that refusal to condone delay would not prejudice the petitioner as the petitioner would not be remediless.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Competition Appellate Tribunal has refused to entertain the Appeal of the petitioner,
petitioner, in terms of liberty granted by this Court on 15.11.2016, would be entitled to maintain a Writ Petition and in these circumstances, seeks recall
of order dated 15.11.2016 and revival of the Writ Petition.
I am unable to accept the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, for the reason that on 15.11.2016, petitioner was given liberty
to approach the Competition Appellate Tribunal by way of an Appeal and it was directed that in case the Appellate Tribunal was of the view that no
Appeal was maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner could seek revival of this subject Writ Petition.
The Appeal of the petitioner has not been dismissed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal, on the ground of maintainability, however, for reasons
recorded in the order dated 03.04.2017, the Competition Appellate Tribunal has refused to condone the delay in filing the Appeal.
Revival of the Writ Petition, in these circumstances would imply that the petitioner avails of two remedies against the same order; one by way of
an Appeal and the other by way of Writ Petition. It is not that the appeal of the petitioner has been held to be not maintainable but the appeal is
dismissed as being barred by limitation. Petitioner cannot be in these circumstances be permitted to maintain a writ petition after its appeal has been
has been dismissed on the grounds of delay.
In these circumstances, I am of the view that the order dated 15.11.2016 does not merit recall. The application is accordingly dismissed.
Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.