The Competition Commission of India (CCI) (Respondent) has ordered a probe against Google Inc. for allegedly abusing its dominant position in 'On line search' advertising on a complaint filed by Mr. Vishal Gupta, a busin

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) (Respondent) has ordered a probe against Google Inc. for allegedly abusing its dominant position in 'On line search' advertising on a complaint filed by Mr. Vishal Gupta, a businessman. Gupta has alleged that companies owned by him had been submitting advertisements in Google Adwords from January 2013 to October 2013, before the account was terminated by the Google. On 15th April, 2014, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) passed an order under section 26(1) of the Act based on the prima-facie opinion, directing the Director General (DG) to investigate into the matter. The Google Inc. (Appellant) filed an application for receiving the investigation order as it was passed without, giving them an opportunity of hearing. The application was dismissed by Competition Commission of India (CCI) on 31st July, 2014 for the following reasons: CCI was of the prima-facie view that a case for investigation under section 26(1) was made out. Issues could be dealt with at a later stage post competition of the investigation. In any event, the power of review was not conferred upon CCI under the Act and therefore, it is impersonable in law for an authority to review/recall its orders. As there was no statutory provision for appeal against such an order, the appellants filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court against the impugned order. Appellant's Argument: Applicant contended that CCI had ordered the investigation without affording an opportunity of hearing. The application for recalling the order was dismissed by CCI on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant relying on Supreme Court's ruling in Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India (SAIL) submitted that merely because Section 37 of the Act had been deleted by 2007 amendment to Act which took away the power of review does not mean that the power to recall an order also ceases, as recall and review are not the same. Respondent's Argument: Counsel for the respondent submitted that though CCI did have their power to review its order before 2007 amendment, but with the deletion of section 37 of the Act, the said power has been taken away. The scheme of the act does not permit review or recall of the orders. CCI also submitted that since investigation was at initial stage and not determinative in nature, the appellant would not suffer any prejudice and therefore, no right for hearing existed. Respondent further submitted that the application was made only to receive complete hearing at initial stage, which can be entertained even at a subsequent stage. Power of substantial review is expressly prohibited, any interference in the investigation would only lead to unnecessary delay in the proceedings as CCI jurisdiction to deal with the matter is a mixed question of fact and law. The Act does not permit any interference in the investigation once set in motion. CCI classified that the applicability of Section 26(1) of the Act is at a preparatory stage and, therefore, not applicable. Whether writ petition filed against CCI order directing investigation is maintainable?