Case No. 43 of 2014. Case: Anila Gupta Vs BEST Undertaking. Competition Commision of India

Case NumberCase No. 43 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: Binoy Gupta, Authorised Representative and For Respondents: Swega Agarwal, Advocate and Rajender Dubal, AGM (L)
JudgesAshok Chawla, Chairperson, M.L. Tayal, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital and Augustine Peter Members
IssueCompetition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(2), 4, 42, 42(3), 43
Judgement DateSeptember 12, 2014
CourtCompetition Commision of India


Order under section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002

  1. Ms. Anila Gupta vide her instant application, received in the Commission on 18.06.2014, is seeking re-opening of her previously instituted information viz. Case No. 06 of 2010 which was filed by her ('the informant') under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('the Act') against BEST Undertaking ('the opposite party'/BEST), alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act.

  2. Facts, as gathered from the order of the Commission in Case No. 06 of 2010 dated 11.01.2012 closing the same, may be briefly noted:

  3. The informant, a consumer of electricity of the opposite party, made an application to M/s. Tata Power Co. (TPCL) on 20.10.2009 for supply of electricity which would entail migration from the current supplier BEST. TPCL responded by apprising that her request could not be acceded to on the ground that rules for changeover from one supplier to another were not applicable to BEST, BEST being a local government body.

  4. The informant subsequently filed a Case No. 86 of 2009 before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) against TPCL praying for an order for commencement of supply by TPCL.

  5. During the course of hearing before MERC held on 21.10.2010, BEST opposed the informant's request on the ground that BEST, being a local authority, had exclusive territorial jurisdiction to supply electricity in its area and therefore, TPCL could not supply electricity within BEST's area of supply. TPCL, on the other hand, expressed willingness to supply electricity to the informant.

  6. It had been alleged by the informant that the stand taken by BEST against its consumers, is illegal and BEST has blatantly indulged in gross and flagrant abuse of its dominant position.

  7. Based on the above averments and allegations, the informant had filed the information before the Commission being Case No. 06 of 2010.

  8. The Commission vide its order dated 11.01.2012 closed the matter giving the liberty to the informant to approach the Commission again, if so she desired, after a final view was taken by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). Subsequently, it appears that the matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which has recently delivered its verdict on 08.05.2014. Accordingly, the informant has filed the present application seeking re-opening of Case No. 06 of 2010.

  9. The Commission has perused the material available...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT