'No Inherent Right Of Hearing': Bombay HC Dismisses Plea Challenging CCI's Order To Probe Asian Paints For Alleged Abuse Of Dominance

The Bombay High Court has held that a party has no inherent right of oral or written hearing at the stage where the Competition Commission of India (CCI) forms a prima facie opinion under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. The Court clarified that the order at this stage is administrative in nature, and whether to afford a hearing lies within the discretion of the CCI.A Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale was hearing a writ petition filed by Asian Paints Limited challenging the CCI's orders, whereby the CCI directed the Director General to investigate allegations made by Grasim Industries Limited that Asian Paints had abused its dominant position in the decorative paints market. Asian Paints contended that the CCI had earlier, in 2022, dismissed a similar complaint filed by JSW Paints and Balaji Traders on identical issues, and therefore, under Section 26(2-A) of the Act, the fresh complaint by Grasim was jurisdictionally barred. The petitioner also contended that the denial of an oral hearing violated the principles of natural justice.The Court rejected these arguments, holding that Section 26(2-A) does not create a jurisdictional embargo on the CCI entertaining a subsequent representation if it raises distinct issues or is supported by fresh material. The Bench emphasised that the provision is merely an enabling one to avoid duplication of proceedings, and its application arises only where the CCI intends to close the matter, not when it chooses to order an investigation. “The object of Section 26(2-A) is only to avoid repetition of the task already undertaken, and in the interest of expedience. Section 26(2-A) only cautions and the CCI to be mindful before considering the representation for the said reasons, and cannot be interpreted to create any jurisdictional embargo, when a new complaint is made to CCI,” the Court observed.The Court further held that no right of hearing vests in a party at the prima facie stage. The Bench noted that an order under Section 26(1) is administrative, and therefore does not require prior hearing. It observed:“… no inherent right of hearing, oral/written, vests in the Petitioner at the stage of formation of a prima facie opinion. Whether or not to afford such a hearing is a matter of discretion with the CCI, guided by the facts and circumstances of each case. The impugned order, being administrative in nature, merely records such opinion and directs the DG to undertake an investigation. Thus, there is no merit in the Petitioner's contention that he ought to have been heard on the facts.”The Court remarked that Grasim's complaint is based on separate facts and warrants investigation. The Court observed that the CCI was conscious of the earlier JSW proceedings and had nevertheless found substance in Grasim's representation, which could not be interfered with at the stage of forming a prima facie view.Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CCI's order directing an investigation against Asian Paints.Case Title: Asian Paints Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India & Anr. [Writ Petition No. 2887 of 2025, Bombay High Court]Click Here To Read/Download Order

'No Inherent Right Of Hearing': Bombay HC Dismisses Plea Challenging CCI's Order To Probe Asian Paints For Alleged Abuse Of Dominance

Saksham Vaishya

Tags