The Orissa High Court’s Division Bench refused to revive a cartel investigation against Rungta Mines, ruling that a High Court direction cannot replace the Competition Commission’s own recorded opinion under Section 26(1).
A direction by a High Court to “take necessary action” on a complaint does not dispense with the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) statutory duty to form its own prima facie opinion under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 before ordering an investigation, the Orissa High Court has held [Competition Commission of India & Anr. v. Rungta Mines Limited & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3445-HC(Orissa)-COMP].
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, who wrote the judgment, dismissed an intra-court appeal by the CCI and its Director General (DG) against a single judge’s ruling of 22 May 2026. That ruling had quashed Suo Motu Case No. 02 of 2021 and all consequential steps as far as they concerned Rungta Mines Limited and its Whole-Time Director.
The case began with a complaint dated 6 Mar 2021 by a Coimbatore contractors’ association to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleging price-fixing by steel makers. Rungta Mines was not named in it. The CBI forwarded the complaint to the DG, and the Madras High Court, on 29 Jul 2021, directed the DG to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The CCI then registered a suo motu case by minutes recorded on 23 Aug 2021. In December 2022 the DG searched Rungta’s Kolkata office under warrants and recorded statements of its employees.
Section 26(1) allows the CCI to direct an investigation only where it is of the opinion that a prima facie case exists. The Bench held that the Madras High Court’s order did not dispense with this requirement, and that the CCI’s minutes did not sufficiently disclose an independent formation of that opinion.
The Bench accepted that the DG is not confined to the enterprises named in a complaint and may extend an investigation to others whose involvement emerges. But that power presupposes an inquiry validly initiated in law, and it cannot cure the absence of the foundational requirement.
The Court also noted that the DG had obtained the CCI’s permission, by an order of 1 Jul 2025, to investigate certain associations not named in the complaint, but no such order or procedure was shown for Rungta Mines. Naming an enterprise as an opposite party in cartel proceedings, it observed, can affect its commercial reputation even before any finding, so the authority must follow the prescribed procedure.
The appeal was dismissed. The Bench clarified that the relief is confined to Rungta Mines and its Whole-Time Director and is not a finding on the allegations against the other enterprises in the case.
2026-juristway.com-3445-HC(Orissa)-COMP
