The CCI has begun its inquiry into Google on the allegations made by digital start-ups in respect of non-compliance of the commission’s October 25 ruling last year in the Google Play Store case. This comes after the Delhi High Court Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma refusing to grant urgent listing of Google appeal against the Single Judge order directing CCI to take up for hearing the ADIF complaint against the tech giant.
Digital start-ups are expecting last-minute intervention by the CCI with Google’s new User Choice Billing (UCB) policy — which Alliance of Digital India Foundation (ADIF) wants to be put on hold — set to go live from midnight (April 26), said sources familiar with the developments.
On Tuesday, Google’s counsel Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi mentioned the tech giant’s appeal before a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad for urgent listing against Single Judge order directing CCI to take up ADIF complaints on Google.
The appeal related to challenge of Delhi High Court Single Judge Tushar Rao Gedela’s order of Monday directing the CCI to take up the applications moved by ADIF against tech giant’s new in-app user choice billing (UCB) policy and consider the same on or before April 26.
Sethi sought urgent listing of the matter on Tuesday, and apprised the court that the CCI is to hear the matter at 2:30 pm on Tuesday.
“The hearing is today at 2:30 pm and a decision is to be taken. There is a lack of quorum,” said Sethi. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for Alliance of Digital India Foundation (ADIF) said that the Letter Patents Appeal (LPA) has not been served upon them yet.
Planned hearing
However, the Delhi High court refused to list the matter for Tuesday, which meant that CCI can go ahead with its planned hearing, sources added.
Delhi High Court Single Judge Gedela had, on Monday, ruled: “There is no impediment, legal or otherwise, in directing the CCI to take up the applications under Section 42 of Competition Act as filed by the petitioner for hearing and considering the same in accordance with law on or before April 26.
“It is made clear that the observations made herein are only to the extent of deciding the present lis before this court and shall not tantamount to any expression on the merits of the case and the same is therefore, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all parties to be taken at the appropriate proceeding.”
The Single Judge also noted that the proceedings before the CCI would not be vitiated due to vacancy or any defect in its constitution.
“Merely because of a defect or a vacancy in the constitution of the CCI, the CCI cannot be considered as a statutory authority not having jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaints or other proceedings pending before it. Any interpretation, other than the aforesaid, would render the provisions of Section 15 otiose and which could not possibly be the intention of the Legislature either,” Gedela’s order added.
