SC: Daily-Wage Status Cannot Deny Annual Increment After Regularisation  ||  SC: Exam Marks Cannot Substitute Mandatory Qualification under Recruitment Rules  ||  SC: Converting Civil Disputes Into Criminal Cases is a Widespread Practice  ||  Kerala High Court Sets Aside KAAPA Preventive Detention Order Against BJP Councillor R Suguthan  ||  Bombay High Court Punishes Two Lawyers for Contempt over Threats to Trial Judge  ||  MP HC Plea Challenges Municipal Law Over Simhastha Kumbh Road Widening and Compensation  ||  Calcutta High Court Orders DNA Tests to Ascertain Biological Identity in Alleged Baby-Swap Case  ||  Bombay HC Confiscates Man's Phone for Filming Proceedings, Levies Rs. 10,000 Costs  ||  Bombay HC: Accused Must Be Produced Before Court on Plea to Extend Investigation Period  ||  Delhi High Court Directs Criminal Complaint Against Six CBI Officers for False Statement in Court    

In the matter of Show cause notice issued to Pakistan Telecommunication Company ltd (ptcl) on complaint filed by m/s linkdotnet telecom ltd and Ors. - (14 Sep 2018)

Once Court recognized its jurisdiction over a public interest matter, applicant is not entitled to halt proceedings by unilateral withdrawal

MRTP/ Competition Laws

Issue involved in present case was relating to maintainability of proceedings initiated vide Show Cause Notice No. 70/2012 dated 14th June 2012 (SCN') issued to Pakistan Tele-communication Company Limited (' Respondent or PTCL') for prima facie violation under Section 3 of Competition Act, 2010. SCN was issued pursuant to a complaint filed with the Competition Commission of Pakistan ('Commission') by LinkdotNet Telecom Ltd, Nexlinx (Pvt.) Limited and Micronet Broadband (Pvt.) Limited (the 'Complainants') whereby it was alleged that, the Respondent had engaged in abuse of its dominant position in violation of Section 3 of Act.

Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (Re-Organization) Act, 1996 (PTRA) dealt with regulation of telecommunication sector and said exclusive role under PTRA was entrusted to Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA). Similarly, under Act, Commission was entrusted with exclusive domain "to provide free competition in all spheres of commercial and economic activity to enhance economic efficiency and to protect consumers from anti-competitive behaviours. Objections of PTCL were not well founded and Commission possessed exclusive jurisdiction under Act to take cognizance of alleged conduct by PTCL.

Further, under provisions of Section 3 7(2) of Act, it was a mandatory obligation of Commission to conduct an enquiry in matter complained of, unless it was of opinion, that application/complaint was frivolous or vexatious or was based on the insufficient facts or was not substantiated with prima facie evidence. Commission was entrusted with responsibility of looking after interest of general public vis-à-vis anti-competitive conduct and to create a level playing field in order to enhance economic efficiency in all spheres of commercial and economic activity and that too in public interest, such like the one alleged against PTCL in instant matter. Hence, unilateral withdrawal of complaint by Complainants did not prejudice proceedings against PTCL pending before Commission.

Once Court recognized its jurisdiction over a public interest matter, applicant was not entitled to halt proceedings by her unilateral withdrawal since interest of public at large was now at stake. The applicant was allowed to withdraw herself from proceedings, however proceedings would continue. Accordingly, proceedings before Commission in matter of Show Cause Notice issued to PTCL for prima facie violation under Section 3 of Act were maintainable and shall continue in accordance with law.

Tags : JURISDICTION   COMPLAINT   WITHDRAWAL  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved