T&AP HC dismisses petition seeking to prohibit ex-Chairman Vinod Dhall from appearing before CCI

The Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a direction that former Competition Commission Of India (CCI) Acting Chairman Vinod Dhall be prohibited from appearing in matters before the body.

Dhall, who joined the CCI as an Officer on Special Duty from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, went on the become Acting Chairman, a post he relinquished in 2008.

According to the PIL filed and argued by party-in-person Major Pankaj Rai, Dhall has continued to represent clients ranging from NIIT, to Whatsapp, to Torrent Pharma before the CCI, after his retirement.

It is also alleged that he is indirectly associated with several other matters in which clients are represented by the law firm Talwar Thakore and Associates,(TT&A) where Dhall serves as Executive Chairman.

Major Rai argued that Dhall’s involvement (direct or indirect) in matters before the CCI was in direct violation of Rule 7 of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules.

It was also alleged that the Secretary of the CCI was in collusion with Dhall and was clandestinely allowing him to represent large corporations against whom complaints of anti-competitive practices or abuse of dominant position had been made.

Further, it was alleged Dhall was using insider knowledge to ensure that informants’ cases were doomed from the start.

While the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice J Uma Devi did not go into the merits of the case, it dismissed the petition on the basis of three points.

The Bench pointed out that Rai had admitted in his affidavit that he had instituted a number of cases in which Dhall represented the other side. They also took into consideration that Rai had filed a writ petition before the High Court in which Dhall was one of the respondents. Given this, they held that the petitioner had a private interest, and hence PIL jurisdiction would not apply. The order states,

“Since the petitioner-party-in-person has a dispute with the 5th respondent, and as he has himself stated in the writ affidavit that in cases instituted by him the 5th respondent is appearing on the other side, the present Writ Petition cannot be characterised as a Public Interest Litigation.”

They also took note of the fact that they had asked the petitioner whether he had instituted a complaint with the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), to which he said he had, but only after the PIL was filed. The Bench observed that no copy of any such compliant had been placed before them.

The Court also took the view that while the fact that the CCI is located in Delhi did not preclude the the petitioner from filing the matter in Hyderabad, a part or whole of the cause of action should necessarily arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. It held that the mere fact that the petitioner resides in Secunderabad, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, did not constitute a cause of action.

Dhall, who spoke to Bar & Bench from Croatia, said,

“The petioner lost a case before the CCI after a full hearing was granted to both parties. The opposite party was represented by lawyers from TT&A. The appropriate course of action would have been to challenge the order before the appellate authority. Instead, he chose to file a writ petition before the Hyderabad High Court, which was dismissed. Now he has filed a PIL which has also been dismissed. Despite all of this, if someone wants to persist nothing much can be done about it.”

He also added that he will be studying the judgement of the High Court and that there was no violation of Bar Council Rules on his part

Rai said that he was in the process of filing a review petition, and would do so shortly.

Read petition

Read order