KRISHNA AND COMPANY Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents have moved this application for rejection of the complaint filed by and on behalf of the applicant/complainant under Sec.10 (a) (i) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief) charging the respondents with adoption of and indulgence in restrictive trade practices (the MRTP Act for brief) within the meaning of Sec.2 (o) thereof. The applicant/complainant has filed its reply and has resisted this application on various grounds.

(2.) It would be quite proper to look at certain facts giving rise to the present proceeding. The applicant/complainant has approached this Commission under Sec.10 (a) (i) read with Sec.2 (o) (ii) of the MRTP Act. He has also taken out an application under Sec.12a thereof for some interim relief. By an order passed by this Commission on 1st July, 1998, a Notice of Enquiry (NOE for convenience) has come to be issued. Simultaneously therewith, a notice as to the interim relief application has also come to be issued. No interim relief has come to be granted by this Commission in favour of the applicant/ complainant. It transpires from the material on record that on 18th September, 1998, learned Advocate Mr. Agnani for the respondents on instructions informed this Commission that the parties have already compromised the dispute between them on 12th September, 1998. Learned Advocate Mr. Sachdev for the applicant/ complainant drew blank on this point. On 8th October, 1998, learned Advocate Mr. Agnani for the respondent informed this Commission that he wanted to move an application on the basis of the letter given to him by the applicant/ complainant stating that the cases pending in this Commission would be withdrawn. He further informed this Commission that the applicant/complainant had got the electricity connection restored but the cases in this Commission were not withdrawn. This Commission granted time to the Advocate for the respondent to move such application within two weeks under a copy to the applicant/ complainant through its Advocate. That is how the present application has come to be moved. As aforesaid, the applicant/complainant has filed its reply and has resisted the said application on several grounds.

(3.) It transpires from the material on record that the applicant/complainant by its letter of 8th September, 1998 requested the Chairman of respondent No.1 to pay the amount by instalment. By his letter of 11th September, 1998, respondent No.2 addressed one communication to the concerned Executive Engineer for reconnection of supply inter alia on condition that the consumer (that is the applicant/complainant herein) will withdraw all cases pending in any Court/mrtp Commission before reconnection. It appears that its copy was forwarded to the applicant/ complainant. Thereupon it appears that the applicant/complainant sent one more communication on 12th September, 1998 to the concerned Executive Engineer of respondent No.1 inter alia undertaking that the cases pending in the MRTP Commission against respondent No.1 will be withdrawn. Relying on this undertaking, it appears that reconnection of electricity supply was affected. It appears that the applicant/complainant did not honour his undertaking, and as such the respondent has moved the present application.