2022 CLD 31 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

VS S. 3---abuse of dominant position---Scope---Commission issued show cause notice to the respondent housing authority for violation of S. 3 of the Competition act, 2010 for not issuing NOC (No Objection Certificate) to a CIT (Cable Internet and Telephony) service provider---Respondent's management had exclusive rights to administer the housing society including a grant of ROW for provision of CIT services and therefore, had 100% market share in the relevant market---Management of respondent was preventing or restricting, reducing or distorting competition in the relevant market in a systematic manner, inter alia, by favouring its own subsidiary and/or applying dissimilar conditions in relation to two seemingly equivalent transactions by requiring revenue sharing percentage, exclusionary practices in terms of excluding the service provider from the relevant market by not allowing it to lay down its infrastructure in the relevant market, and ultimately refusing to deal on the pretext of potential physical damage to infrastructure and unavailability of space the corridors, which according to respondent had already been occupied by other CIT service providers---Conduct of the management of respondent was adversely affecting competition in the provision of CIT services within the relevant market---Respondent had also failed to provide any rational commercial or objective justification in terms of efficiency gains for its exclusionary and anti-competitive conduct under review---Such was discouraging investors to the consumer's detriment and proliferation of CIT services which in turn was affecting the national economy as well as the competition inter se other service providers which was prohibited under the Competition act, 2010---Commission observed that the respondent had abused its dominant position in terms of S. 3(1) read with Ss. 3(3)(e), (g) & (h) of the Competition act, 2010---Respondent was directed to offer to the service provider ROW on terms and conditions which were no less favourable than the terms and conditions to incumbent service providers.

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLD