HARDEEP SINGH ANAND Vs. DAINIK BHASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INFORMANT claimed to be running coaching classes in Jabalpur. He was aggrieved by the unfair trade practices of publishing false exaggerated results by various coaching institutes without mentioning the names, roll numbers of respective candidates in exams, and giving no addresses of selected candidates in the newspapers. Briefly, the informant submitted that various 'coaching institutes' were in the practise of publishing fake results without disclosing description of the successful candidates. This resulted in exploitation of innocent students who join a particular 'coaching institute' based on these misleading advertisements. As per the informant, Dainik Bhaskar (O.P. 1) was a monopolist newspaper in Jabalpur & surroundings areas which colluded with Momentum Classes and promoted the latter in spite of its weak performance. The informant relied upon certain press report of other newspapers of Indore to show collusion of O.P. 1 with Brain Master. He alleged that O.P. 1 was trying to establish monopoly of Brain Master's through unfair means.

(2.) THE informant highlighted that almost 8 -10 'coaching Institutes' were wrongfully cornering a market worth Rs. 500 to Rs. 1000 crores per year, since 2004 but were paying insignificant service tax & income tax, thereby flouting tax laws as well. On the basis of the above, the informant prayed to the Commission that an inquiry be initiated into the unfair trade practices of the 'coaching Institutes' and the newspapers exploiting innocent students to make unjust gains.

(3.) THE newspaper clippings submitted by the informant clearly show that there was no dearth of players either in the field of coaching classes or in the field of newspapers. Therefore, the contention regarding abuse of dominance, as alleged by the informant, stands negated. Inserting advertisements in newspapers with misleading or false claims in order to corner a share in the market or to gain more market share prima facie does not raise any competition concern. Prima facie, no case was made out for an investigation under any of the provisions of the Act. For the reasons stated above, the case deserves to be closed down under section 26(2) of the Act and is hereby closed. The Secretary is directed to inform the parties accordingly.