Delhi High Court Denies UltraTech Plea Against CCI Order Adding Builders' Body In Cement Probe

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined to entertain the writ petition filed by UltraTech Cement Ltd., asking to set aside a CCI order that added Builders Association of India in ongoing proceedings against it. The proceedings are regarding an investigation of allegations of cartelisation and price manipulations by grey cement manufacturers.

Before July 1, 2019, the Competition Commission of India had received complaints about grey cement manufacturers' conduct adversely affecting competition. The BAI also alleged cartelisation, leading to a price increase in grey cement. On July 1, 2019, the CCI initiated investigations into the allegations.

UltraTech challenged the order as it had allowed the Builders Association of India to access non-confidential records in ongoing proceedings. The company argued that this access could have disclosed sensitive information, violating privacy rights under Article 21.

The cement maker highlighted Regulation 35, which designates seized materials as 'confidential,' and criticised the order for allowing BAI in final hearings, potentially revealing marked confidential data.

The company deemed the order unreasonable, citing a failure to meet the two-fold test in Regulation 25, emphasising BAI's lack of 'substantial interest,' and questioning the need for its opinion in 'public interest.' The petitioner argued that BAI prioritised private commercial interests over broader public concerns.

The CCI asserted that BAI, as the largest consumer of cement, was directly impacted by anti-competitive practices in the grey cement industry. Therefore, BAI was deemed a necessary party, with substantial interest for a meaningful inquiry. The CCI contended that BAI's impediment didn't affect the legal rights of the petitioner, whose role was limited to providing inputs and information to the CCI.

The commission's counsel also maintained that the application of principles of natural justice was not absolute and depended on the nature of the duty performed by the authority.

The CCI stated that BAI was only allowed access to non-confidential information and was not part of the confidential ring, excluding commercially sensitive details. It highlighted that opposing parties were informed of the order inviting BAI to present its opinion, and no objections were received.

The Delhi High Court, in its observations, highlighted that the impugned order did not grant confidential records to BAI. The court also rejected the petitioner's claim that the CCI ignored adequate safeguards, stating that procedural provisions for sharing information were duly followed.

The court asserted that the contentions raised by the petitioner were not valid. The petition was dismissed, and the court supported the CCI's actions in the matter.