2026 CLD 600 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 Ss. 4 & 37(1)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Preamble---Competition Commission conducting suo moto proceedings---Informal complainant---Right to cross examine---Admissibility / evaluation of evidence---Standard---Whether the right to cross examine the informal complainant in case of suo moto proceedings exists under the Competition Act, 2010 ('the Act')?---Held: While the complaint received may have been informal in nature, it nonetheless raised valid concerns regarding a possible violation of the Act----Under S. 37(1) of the Act, the Commission is empowered to initiate a suo moto enquiry where there exists a reasonable basis to suspect a contravention of the Act---In the present case, the allegations were of collective price fixing of freight charges by the Respondents which were serious enough to merit regulatory intervention, irrespective of the formality of the complaint---The Commission exercised its lawful discretion and constituted an Enquiry Committee to investigate the matter---The findings of the Committee, following a detailed inquiry, concluded that the Respondents had collectively discussed, shared, and fixed freight rates, which prima facie amounted to collusive behavior in violation of S. 4(1) read with S. 4(2)(a) of the Act, which explicitly prohibits agreements that have the object or effect of fixing prices or restricting competition---Following the enquiry, Show-Cause Notices (SCNs) were duly issued to the Respondents in accordance with S. 30 of the Act---All material collected during the enquiry was transparently provided to the Respondents---Moreover, the Respondents were afforded full opportunity of a fair hearing, including submission of written replies and oral arguments, in strict compliance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness---Standard for admissibility and evaluation of evidence in regulatory and quasi-judicial proceedings, such as those conducted by the Commission, is distinct from the evidentiary standards applicable in civil or criminal trials---In such contexts, the focus is on whether the evidence presented is relevant, credible, and probative, not whether it conforms to the strict rules of evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---Although the process followed by the CCP while hearing cases must follow due process, they are not bound by the formal laws of evidence and procedure---Thus, the Respondent's claim of the right to cross-examine the cargo handling company representative was erroneous because the proceedings were started suo moto and all pertinent information was provided to the Respondents at the time of the investigation, thus, upholding the principles of natural justice and fairness---The Bench rejected the Respondents argument being without merit---Competition Commission Bench imposed a penalty in the sum of PKR five million on each of the Respondents---Show Cause Notice proceedings were decided against the Goods Transport Associations accordingly.

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLD