By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, MAY 03, 2015: THE Delhi High Court has given yet another jolt to the powers of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) when it held that the CCI has inherent powers to review or recall its order. A Complaint was filed before the CCI that Google Inc has abused its dominant position in the internet advertising space by promoting its vertical search services like Youtube, Google News, Google Maps, etc. In other words, these services would appear predominantly during a search result on Google, irrespective of their popularity or relevance. On April 15th, 2014 the CCI ordered Director General (DG) u/s 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 to investigate into the affairs of Google Inc. As per Section 26(1), the CCI orders an investigation on the basis of prima-facie opinion and at this stage, the Act does not provide any right of being heard to the parties. Therefore, Google Inc had filed an application before the CCI for recall of its order dated April 15th, 2014. However, the application was rejected on the ground that CCI lacked jurisdiction to entertain any such application.

Google Inc filed writ petition before the Delhi Court and the matter was listed before the Chief Justice. The main issue was whether an administrative body like CCI had inherent powers to review or recall its order passed u/s 26(1) in the absence of any specific provisions in the Competition Act? The High Court held that in light of the judgment Competition Commission of India v. SAIL. order passed u/s 26(1) is administrative in nature and therefore, the CCI has inherent powers to review or recall its order even in the absence of express provisions in the Competition Act. It was observed that when a wrong and illegal administrative order can be set aside in a judicial review, the same can also be undone by the administrative body itself by reviewing its own order.

There have been past instances where Google Inc has been found guilty of abusing its dominant position in European Union and is already facing fresh investigation for anti-trust violations. This decision of the Delhi High Court shows that the remedy of writ petition has made heavy inroads into the functioning of the CCI. This decision also stands as testimony to yet another successful lawyerly tactic to prolong investigations. While CCI can no longer reject an application for review or recall of its order, it would be interesting to see whether the CCI actually reviews or recalls any of its order while disposing of any such application.