Case Law Details
Mineral Enterprises Ltd. Vs Ministry of Railways, Union of India (Competition Commission of India)
ORDER UNDER SECTION 26(2) OF THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002
1. The present information has been filed by M/s Mineral Enterprises Limited (‘the informant’) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘the Act’) against Ministry of Railways, Union of India (‘OP No. 1’) and The Railway Board (OP No. 2) alleging inter-alia contravention of Section 4 of the Act.
2. The informant is a duly registered company engaged in varied activities including mining, logistics and infrastructure development. Its core area of business comprise of mining, trading and exports of iron ore. For transportation of iron ore extracted from the mines of the informant, it uses the services of rail transport, owned and controlled by opposite parties.
3. Prior to the enactment of Indian Railways Act, 1890, rail transport was largely managed by private players with the interference of Government being limited to coordination, regulation and apportionment of claims amongst the railways companies. Subsequently the Railways Act, 1989 was enacted, which empowered the Central Government to fix rates for carriage and passengers and goods by the Railways, to classify or reclassify any commodity for the purpose of determining the rates to be charged for the carriage of such commodity etc. OP No. 2 prescribes the freight circulars for any commodity by obtaining the sanction of the Central Government, in terms of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. Empowered so under the Indian Railways Act, OP No. 2 issued various rate circulars or rate instructions (‘rate instructions’) adjusting the freight rates during April 2003 and 2012. OP No. 2 also reclassified the iron ore based upon its end use, thereby imposing different freights on iron ore based on its end use. The iron ore meant for domestic consumption for manufacture of iron and steel was charged at a lower rate and iron ore transported for other domestic purpose or for export purpose attracted a higher freight. Aggrieved by this classification, the informant approached this Commission alleging abuse of dominant position by the opposite parties under section 4 of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
