DIRECTOR GENERAL Vs. PERTECH COMPUTERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Today the case is fixed for directions. On the last date of hearing, it was stated by the ADG representing the DG that no affidavit of evidence could be filed because there was no response from the witnesses. It was further stated that he would seek instructions from the DG and make a submission in this behalf. Today again, we find that there are no affidavits of evidence in support of the allegations of unfair trade practices, contained in the Notice of Enquiry. It has been brought to our attention that out of the six witnesses, four are residents of Delhi and NOIDA. It is really strange that the witnesses could not be contacted by the DG and their affidavits could not be filed despite several opportunities and the fact that this enquiry was instituted in October, 1997 and was pending for the last about four years. It also transpires that at the request of the ADG, summons were also ordered to be issued for procuring the presence of the witnesses. But it appears that perhaps, due to the failure of the DG to file the affidavits of evidence of these witnesses also and his inability to contact them and furnish their complete and current addresses, the summons were not issued. It may also be mentioned here that one of the witnesses happened to be a Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) and as in the meantime, twice elections to the Lok Sabha were held in February, 1998 and again in October, 1999, it is not known whether he is still a Member of Lok Sabha. It appears that DG has taken no interest in following up this enquiry and in either dropping the witnesses who are not available or in filing affidavits of evidence of the witnesses who are available or who can be contacted and produced as witnesses. It may also be mentioned that there is a statement of one Shri I. Gowrishankar on non-judicial stamp paper and is captioned as "affidavit" but it is not notarised or attested. Moreover, it is not an affidavit of evidence but it is in the nature of a complaint to MRTP Commission and contains a request for investigation into the matter and for recovery of his money. In view of the above, we are left with no option but to close the DG's evidence as we are of the considered view that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the enquiry pending and granting further adjournment to enable the DG to file affidavits of evidence of the witnesses.

(2.) The respondent is also not represented today. Even though a copy of the order passed on 20th September, 2000 was sent to the respondent by RPAD, the respondent failed to enter appearance and consequently, on 29th January, 2001, the respondent was set ex-parte. In view of these circumstances, we fail to understand as to how the enquiry will proceed and will be concluded. There is no seriousness on the part of the DG also and, therefore, without evidence in support of the allegations of unfair trade practice, a cease and desist order can't be passed. We accordingly, direct that the enquiry may be closed and in the result, the Notice of Enquiry is discharged. NOE discharged.