ATLAS HONDA CARS (PAKISTAN) LIMITED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice S

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

ATLAS HONDA CARS (PAKISTAN) LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice S.37---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Issuance of inquiry notices by Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP), challenge to---Increase in prices of vehicles, allegation of---Powers of CCP to initiate inquiry (including suo motu)---Non-disclosure/non-conveying of detailed reasons for initiation of inquiry---Scope---There is no requirement under the law that detailed reasons for initiating an inquiry should be conveyed, rather a gist of the reasons which led to the decision of initiating inquiry is required to be conveyed. Ss.36 & 37---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Inquiry notices concerning increase in vehicle prices, challenge to---Anti-competitive practice, allegation of---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, exercise of---Scope---Non-interference by High Court at investigative stage of the inquiry---Briefly, the petitioner company was subjected to a suo motu inquiry initiated by the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) under S.37(1) of the Competition Act, 2010 concerning increases in vehicle prices---During the course of the inquiry, the petitioner company responded to notices and furnished information, however, the inquiry remained pending and further notices were issued requiring additional information, whereupon, the petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court challenging the legality of the continuation of the inquiry and the validity of the subsequent information-seeking notices, giving rise to the issue as to “whether such inquiry proceedings and impugned notices (issued during the pendency of the inquiry) under S.37 of the Act, were lawful and amenable to interference in constitutional jurisdiction?”---Held: The inquiry was initiated in 2018 and petitioner continued to correspond with the CCP and, in March 2021, its representatives appeared and gave a detailed presentation---At no point during this four-year period from 2018 to 2022 did the petitioner company challenge the CCP's authority, the basis of the inquiry, or the notices issued to it, instead, it opted to comply, participate and submit to the jurisdiction of the CCP, therefore, it could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate---By actively participating in the proceedings, furnishing information and making representations without any protest or reservation for a considerable period, the petitioner company had, by its own conduct, acquiesced to the proceedings---Having waived its right to challenge the proceedings at the contemporaneous stage, the petitioner company was barred by the principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence from turning around and assailing the inquiry's legitimacy---Present petition was a clear afterthought, seemingly filed to stall the proceedings upon issuance of the impugned notices---Even otherwise, on merits, calling for information under S.36 was a regulatory power---Moreover, S.37 granted the CCP the authority to conduct inquiries into matters relevant to the Act, on its own initiative---The impugned notices were merely in continuation of the pending inquiry initiated by the CCP---It was not for the High Court, in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the CCP's assessment of what information was relevant to its investigation---The CCP was the master of its own proceedings and unless malafides were alleged and proven, High Court could not interfere at the investigative stage---If the petitioner believed it was not involved in any anti-competitive practice, its remedy was not to rush to the High Court, but to provide the requisite information to the CCP to substantiate its stance and bring the inquiry to a logical conclusion---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

ATLAS HONDA CARS (PAKISTAN) LIMITED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice S — 2026 CLD 631 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLD