to arrive at a prima facie opinion and also to enable the opposite parties to understand the accusation made against them so that they can fairly defend their case effectively. Again, as contended earlier, learned Senior Counsel pleaded that due to non-compliance of the Regulations 10, 12, 14 and 15, the reference has become invalid under Regulation 15(3) by operation of law, therefore, when there is no reference at all, the CCI cannot exercise the jurisdiction on the non-existing reference under Section 26(1). Again pinpointing to the alleged error committed by the learned single Judge, learned Senior Counsel contended that the observation of the learned single Judge that defective reference or improper reference is not on jurisdictional issue, may not be the correct approach. Referring to Regulation 40 and Section 15(c), it was contended that when these provisions cannot override the invalidity stipulated under Regulation 15(3), the learned single Judge, it is contended, failed to consider whether the Regulations are mandatory or directory, although this issue was specifically raised. When Regulation 15(3) stipulates penal consequence for non-compliance of Regulations 10, 11 and 13, Section 15(c) cannot be considered out of context, as, in the present case, Section 15(c) is inapplicable, he added. Again assailing the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, it was contended that the reasoning given by the learned single Judge that no prejudice would be caused to the parties by a mere direction to investigate and their rights are not affected, is unjustifiable. When the prejudice caused by the order to investigate cannot be called in question till the final order is passed by CCI under Section 27 of the Competition Act and when the punishment is also imposed, the observation of the learned single Judge that the parties are at liberty to raise all their objections before the Director General and before the Commission at the time of inquiry before passing final order, is legally not permissible in law. A compendious reading of Sections 26(1) and 41(2) read with Regulation 21(7) and (8) shall disclose all opportunities to object are subject to the pure discretion of the Commission and the Director General. Assailing one of the impugned observations made by the learned single Judge that no prejudice is caused on account of the order under Section 26(1) on the reference, since it is only at the investigation stage, it has been contended that the entire process of investigation by the Director General and the inquiry by the CCI are the same procedure which may result in punishment, therefore, in the absence of reasonable opportunity for the person likely to be affected by the finding of the Director General, the learned single Judge ought not to have come to the conclusion that no prejudice is caused on account of the investigation being proceeded against them. Finally, highlighting on the principles of res judicata, it has been argued that when a similar issue relating to June-July, 2011 was already adjudicated by the CCI
