MILTON PLASTICS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith by consent. Respondents waive service. This petition pertains to an exparte ad interim order dated 23rd September 1991 issued by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission under section 12 A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1969. The order is in respect of contest for sales promotion, the details of which are set out in Exhibit A to the petition. It requires, inter alia, the competitors to annexe a purchase coupon for the purpose of entering the contest. The purchase coupon can be obtained by purchasing Milton Products worth Rs. 150/- The scheme for sales promotion commenced from 15th September, 1991. The petitioners have stated that in respect of the scheme, expenditure worth approximately Rs. 45/_ lakhs has already been incurred by the petitioners by way of insertion of advertisements and projection and distribution of other sales promotion material. The petitioners have also pointed out that under the scheme as many as 60 advertisements were scheduled to be published in Newspapers throughout the country within the next 9 days (from the date of filing of the petition ). The petitioners had, before implementing their scheme, by their letter dated 6th of September 1991 addressed to the Director General of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi, intimated to him that they proposed to launch the scheme from 15th September 1991 onwards. In the letter the petitioners stated that they had been advised that their scheme will not amount to a restrictive or unfair trade practice under the MRTP Act 1969. They stated that in case they did not hear from the respondents, they would presume that the Scheme was not hit by the provisions of the MRTP Act.

(2.) THE petitioners did not recive any reply to this letter. According to the petitioners, they learnt from press reports appearing on 25th September, 1991 that an ex parte ad interim order had been passed by the 2nd respondent restraining the petitioners from proceeding with the scheme. Thereupon the petitioners wrote to the respondents on 26th September, 1991 enquiring about such an order. The letter was hand delivered to the respondents on 27th September, 1991. Thereafter, only on 30th September, 1991, were the petitioners served with impugned order which has been passed on 23rd September, 1991. The petitioners have also pointed out that on the date of the order, they had filed a caveat mentioning that an order should not be passed against them under section 12a or any other provisions of the MRTP Act without notice to them. In fact, this is set out in the impugned order in para 4. Yet no notice was given to the petitioners.

(3.) THE petitioners have challenged this order of 23rd September 1991. The petitioners have relied upon the provisions of section 12a of the MRTP Act 1969. Under section 12a (1) "where, during an inquiry before the Commission it is proved, whether by the complainant, Director General, any trader or class of traders or any other person, by affidavit or otherwise, that any undertaking or any person is carrying on, or is about to carry on,. . . restrictive, or unfair trade practice and. . . . . such restrictive or unfair trade practice is likely to affect prejudicially the public interest. or the interest. . of any consumer or Consumers generally, the commission may, for the purposes of staying or preventing the undertaking. . . from causing such prejudical affect, by order, grant a temporary injunction restraining such undertaking or person from carrying on any. . . . . . restrictive or unfair trade practice untill the conclusion of such inquiry or until further orders. " sub-section (2) of section 12-A provides,