STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. GIR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be decided in this appeal is whether the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 relating to an irrigation programme sought to be implemented by the appellant-State. According to the appellants, the irrigation programme or "Warbandi" had been introduced w.e.f. 19th August, 1995 in respect of certain lands including that of the respondent-complainant. The allegation in the complaint was that by the irrigation programme, the complainants agricultural crops would be affected. The complaint charged the appellants with "having manipulated the conditions of delivery of service of supplying irrigation water" and having indulged in restrictive trade practices within the meaning of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (referred to as the Act).

(2.) The appellant questioned the jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain the complaint. The Commission negatived the preliminary objection raised by the appellant holding that Government Departments which render "service" in terms of S. 2 of the Act are covered by the provisions of the Act. It was found as a matter of fact that the State was rendering a "service." The Commission, therefore, issued a notice of inquiry against the appellant. The proceedings before the Commission were stayed by this Court on the special leave petition filed by the appellants.

(3.) We are unable to sustain the decision of the Commission. The Commissions jurisdiction with regard to alleged restrictive trade practices has been provided for under S. 10 of the Act. A restrictive trade practice has been defined in S. 2(o) as meaning :