2010 PLP 457 (CLD)

The Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Pvt.) Limited (the "Undertaking") was served a show-cause notice under section 30 of the Competition Ordinance, 2007 (the "Ordinance") by Competition Commission of Pakistan (the "Commission") for violation of section 3(3)(g) and (h) for prima facie, abusing its dominant position by refusing to deal with purchasers in relation to low carbon steel billets. The Undertaking was required to appear before the Commission on May 29, 2009.

2. The Undertaking responded through its counsel Mr. Mazhar Jafri of Azfar Mazhar and Co., letter dated May 9, 2009, received in the Commission on May 11, 2009 and requested for adjournment on the ground that they need further time to trace out and research relevant facts and material from the record for drafting requisite reply. They requested that the time for furnishing requisite reply may be extended to June 15, 2009 and hearing may be adjourned for 3rd week of June, 2009.

3. The Undertaking was responded vide Commission's letter dated May 12, 2009 and it was informed that its request was considered by the Commission and it is of the view that adjournments granted without reason create disaffection amongst the public and undermine efficacy of institutions like ours which are performing inter alia quasi judicial functions. The Undertaking was also advised to appear before the Commission between May 13 to 15, 2009, at its convenience to explain and satisfy as to why adjournment be granted. The Undertaking was, however, allowed to file its reply by May 17, 2009.

4. In response to Commission's letter of May 12, 2009 the Undertaking replied vide its letter dated May 13, 2009 through its corporate Secretary Mr. Absar Nabi. It was submitted that its Chairman is on ex-Pakistan leave from May 6 to May 20, 2009 to perform UMRA. NOC in respect of the Chairman's leave dated May 5, 2005 was also attached and again adjournment was requested.

5. The Undertaking was informed vide Commission's letter dated May 13, 2009 that the Undertaking's request for adjournment was already considered and they were informed of Commission's decision in this regard. Accordingly, the Undertaking was advised that it needs to appear and satisfy the Commission through its duly authorized representative for grant of adjournment in the matter.

6. The counsel Mr. Mazhar Jafri appeared today before us in this regard. At the outset we must appreciate the counsel's conduct who apologized for the Undertaking's letter dated May 13, 2009 for it's inappropriate content and submitted that the same will be withdrawn. The counsel, however, reiterated that owing to non-availability of the Chairman of the Undertaking who is on leave to perform Umra and will return on May 20, 2009 the matter may be adjourned as requested. It was also emphasized that the Undertaking is too centralized and as the Chairman is involved in most matters, his presence and guidance is needed. The counsel acknowledged that the matter is of public importance and relates to a serious matter, therefore, the Commission may allow more time for proper preparation of the case under the circumstances.

7. We have taken into account the submissions of the counsel and are of the considered view that adjournment must be granted judiciously and should be based on a sufficient cause. Also, the Commission takes a strict view when considering requests for grant of adjournments where these seem more of dilatory tactics leading to an abuse of the process of law. In this case, it appears somewhat egregious that despite being given adequate time, convenience of the counsel or non-availability on account of personal engagement of the Chairman were raised as grounds for adjournment all purportedly 'in the interest of justice', and "in accordance with established principle of law and natural justice".

8. It needs to be appreciated that an applicant cannot ask for a date of its own choice as this is asking for too much indulgence which cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It has not been explained by the counsel as to what complex issues, if any, are involved which would require further time for preparation although it has been acknowledged that it is a serious matter and one which is of public importance. However, taking into account the counsel's conduct and his earnest assurances that he will henceforth assist the Commission in timely and proper fashion, we have agreed to adjourn the matter only till May 29, 2009 to which the counsel agreed. The counsel has agreed to provide the written reply to the show-cause notice on or before May 27, 2009. The hearing will now be fixed for May 29, 2009; hearing notices may be issued to the concerned parties accordingly. H.B.T./5/CCP Order accordingly.