The Delhi High Court stated that the Builder's Association of India had sufficient interest in the proceedings as it was the largest consumer of grey cement. (AI-generated Image)Citing “public interest”, the Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) decision to allow the Builders Association of India (BAI) to join a probe into alleged price control by cement companies.A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing an appeal filed by the cement company Ultratech against the CCI’s decision to add BAI as a party in the case where cement companies are being investigated over allegations of illegally controlling cement prices in the market.“If, in a given case, certain investigation/inquiry is conducted by the commission against certain entities in respect of allegations of their indulgence in anti-competition practices, any party or person or entity or an enterprise having sufficient interest in the matter can be impleaded in the proceedings of the Commission, which, in our opinion, will be only to further the public interest,” the September 9 order read. Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia denied the cement company’s appeal and held that allowing the opinions of BAI would further public interest.According to the judgment, CCI received multiple complaints between December 2018 and May 2019 about the conduct of certain grey cement manufacturers, resulting in adverse competitive effects. It was alleged that grey cement manufacturers were teaming up to control the market, resulting in an abnormal increase in the price of cement.Hence, the commission ordered an investigation into the matter. On December 7, 2021, the BAI filed an application seeking to be added as a party to the case, which the commission rejected as the matter was at an advanced stage of investigation.The BAI, however, challenged CCI’s order before the high court and on July 5, 2023, CCI allowed BAI to “present its opinion” in the case as it found that the builders’ association had a “substantial interest” in the outcome of the case.Ultratech Cement approached the high court against this decision of the commission but its plea was refused by a single judge on December 18, 2023, after which it filed an appeal.Story continues below this ad‘Hostile body’Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and advocate Nisha Kaur Oberoi, appearing for the cement company, argued that while passing the order and including BAI as a party in the case, the commission did not give any opportunity to the company to put forth its side and stated that BAI was a “hostile body”. It said that BAI would get access to “confidential and non-confidential materials” about the company due to being attached in the case.Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria, appearing for BAI, submitted that the association was not a hostile body and is the largest consumer of grey cement in the country. The counsel contended that BAI had “sufficient interest” in the outcome of the case and the CCI found that it was necessary in “public interest” to allow the builders’ association to “present its opinion” in the matter.Advocate Aakanksha Kaul, representing the CCI, stated that the confidentiality of the company’s documents was protected, as the BAI had stated before the Supreme Court in an earlier case that it would not apply to see the company documents that were marked ‘confidential’.‘In public interest’The high court noted that as per the law, if the CCI receives an application and is “satisfied that a person or enterprise has substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings and that it is necessary in public interest to allow it to present an opinion on the matter, the court may do so.Story continues below this adRejecting the appeal, the court observed that “the interest of the BAI is discernible on the basis of the mere fact that its members are the largest consumers of grey cement and once any anti-competition inquiry or investigation is instituted into the conduct of the cement manufacturers in the country, such an association will obviously have sufficient interest in the proceedings instituted by the Commission.”According to the court, it cannot be denied that BAI had sufficient interest in the proceedings and, hence, it would be “in public interest” to allow the association to submit its opinion.