It is a universally accepted fact that the prime objective and beneficiary of competition laws are consumers or more precisely general citizens of a country and that’s why are termed as consumer welfare law falling in ambit of social welfare legislation. These laws benefit citizens through lower prices of goods, better quality of product, continued availability of supply and innovation thrive.
It is a universally accepted fact that the prime objective and beneficiary of competition laws are consumers or more precisely general citizens of a country and that’s why are termed as consumer welfare law falling in ambit of social welfare legislation. These laws benefit citizens through lower prices of goods, better quality of product, continued availability of supply and innovation thrive.
It is one of the major source for state to address rising economic and social inequality and answers to the greatest weakness in capitalist society i.e. ‘rich getting richer and poor getting poorer’. An inefficient competition law or its implementation leads to situation where cartel of rich people/organizations achieve their goals at the cost of the consumer and ordinary layman, directly or indirectly and that’s why heavily falls on the poor people, labors, employees i.e. the scattered and unorganized masses who neither have resources nor opportunity to increase their prices/revenue parallel to the opposite stronger sides.
The aim of competition law is not only punitive but also discontinuance and deterrence of anti-competitive activities and behavior along with appropriate equalize for direct and indirect victims. Today the legislative, administrative and judicial system of developed world gone one step ahead by permitting private enforcement along with public enforcement of competition cases.
There laws and regulations not only provides claim of damages by victims but all the convenience require to prove claim by private victims, such as presumptions in their favor, commencement of time limits for claim, class action, combining victims through opt-in and opt-out mechanism.
Cartelisation is considered one of the worst form of antitrust and anti competition attitude and that’s why termed as ‘hard core cartel’ by competition experts. Among the severe penalties imposed world over as well as by Competition Commission of Pakistan; hard core cartel is the major head followed by deceptive marketing practices. However, regrettably CCP decisions are yet far from the standards of debate and analysis at judicial and quasi- judicial stages which it deserves and as done in other countries of the world to achieve the objective of law and social and economic equilibrium in society.
Most regrettably the legal and human right of the accused before determination of guilt by an independent forum along with presumption of innocence till proved guilty; does not go very well with the objective of competition laws at least this social welfare law; more specifically considering the over-burdened courts by pendency, absence of experts on subject and procedural lapses on part of authorities.
Taking the benefit of these obstacles; cartelization achieves its objective of increase profits by raising prices at the cost of dispersed consumers; at least under the garb and plan to seek protection through interim injunction.
Since the ultimate monetary benefit is so humongous that even the colossal cost of litigation bothers very little for cartel players.
The principles of grant of interim injunction are almost universal throughout the world i.e. comparison of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss between the two sides of litigation. However, in anti-competition matters and specifically in Cartel cases; it needs to be distinguished that it’s not the CCP or any other authority which is defendant; rather the poor and weaker class of the country are on the other side as defendant. In other words, its Cartel vs. disadvantaged and mediocre class.
Accordingly, considering the legal right of accused seller on one side and balance of convenience and irreparable loss on other side; the honorable courts while granting interim injunction in cartel cases order the Plaintiffs to monthly deposit with the Nazir of court, alleged price differential along with list of the buyers, till the time of final decision.
Only this mechanism will ensure the achievement of true objective of Competition law as well as balance between the two sides. Sympathy of this equilibrium is necessary considering the un-compensable loss suffered by general citizens and lack of identifiable victims in Cartel cases; specially when the pending matter is merely of legal lacuna, procedural lapses or challenge to the statutory appointments.
On the other hand, the competition authority needs to equip with latest trends in cartel investigation, advocate general public, specially consumer welfare bodies to participate in such litigation.
