| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 1914 2017 SLD 1914 2017 CLD 881 |
Competition Commission of Pakistan
F. No. 153/BAHRIA/C&TA/CCP/2016, decided on 27-01-2017
DR. SHAHZAD ANSAR, MEMBER, IKRAM UL HAQUE QURESHI, MEMBER
Amjad Ali, Manager (Services) North and Aftab Ahmed Butt for Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limited.Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Faisal Khan for Mr. Nayatel (Pvt.) Limited.Ghulam Mustafa, GM Legal, Ch. Badar, Assistant Manager, Lega
F. No. 153/BAHRIA/C&TA/CCP/2016, decided on 27-01-2017
DR. SHAHZAD ANSAR, MEMBER, IKRAM UL HAQUE QURESHI, MEMBER
Amjad Ali, Manager (Services) North and Aftab Ahmed Butt for Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limited.Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Faisal Khan for Mr. Nayatel (Pvt.) Limited.Ghulam Mustafa, GM Legal, Ch. Badar, Assistant Manager, Lega
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO PAKISTAN BAHRIA TOWN (PVT.) LIMITED: IN THE MATTER OF
Law: Competition Act, 2010
Section: 2(1)(e),2(1)(K),2(1)(q),3,3(1),3(3)(e),3 (3)(h)
(a) Competition Act (XIX of 2010)--- ----S. 3--- Abuse of dominant position--- Competition Commission received an e-mail, highlighting concerns that the residents of a Residential Colony were deprived of any alternate "Cable, Internet and Telephony Services (C.I.T. Services)" provider; that they were forced to subscribe a specific service; and that no other option or substitute was available because the Management of the Colony was not granting "Right of Way" (R.O.W.) to lay down C.I.T. in the Colony---Enquiry Committee concluded that Management of the Colony had exclusive control and dominant position in granting "R.O.W." in the area that its conduct appeared to be violative of S.3(1) read with 3(e), (g) and (h) of the Competition Act, 2010 by applying dissimilar conditions on the other network excluding it to provide its C.I.T. service---Based on the findings of the enquiry report, the Competition Commission issued show-cause notice to the Management of the Colony---One of the main issues involved in the case was; "whether 'Residential Colony' and the specific C.I.T. Operator had been dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in Competition Act, 2010"---Held, proceedings were based on an enquiry authorized by the Competition Commission pursuant to S.37(1) of the Competition Act, 2010 and show-cause notice was issued under S.37(2)(b) of the said Act---Commission found it appropriate that there had been no substantive or procedural anomaly during the enquiry stage and during the proceedings---All concerned parties were given ample opportunity of being heard and to present their view both in writing as well as during the conduct of the hearing---Both, the Residential Colony and the C.I.T. Operator had been dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Competition Act, 2010, in circumstances. (b) Competition Act (XIX of 2010)--- ----S. 2(1)(K)---Defining and delineating "relevant market"---Object---Objective of defining and delineating the relevant market was to identify the competitive constraints that undertakings might face by identifying actual or potential competitors and preventing them from behaving independently by effective…