Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
Prakash Chimanlal Sheth vs Walsingham House School (Icse) on 2 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: I(2003)CPJ92(MRTP)
ORDER
C.M. Nayar, J. (Chairman)
1. The present complaint arises from the plea taken by the complainant that the respondent school issued a Circular regarding new school uniforms of the students from the academic year 2002-03 where parents have been asked to buy new uniforms from certain fixed shops at certain pre-determined fixed price and minimum two sets of uniforms, etc. The complainant Mr. Prakash Chimanlal Sheth has addressed a complaint dated 15th April, 2002 to this Commission. It is also stated in the complaint that the Principal of the school allowed the parents to buy uniforms from other shops/ tailors but only from the 2nd year onwards and mentioned that the uniforms for the first time shall be purchased from "Anukool Selections."
2. The respondent has filed detailed reply wherein it is stated as follows :
"1. Walsingham House School ("the School") is not trading in uniforms. In prescribing a dress it is not undertaking a practice relating to the carrying out of any trade. The school first had a uniform consisting of a shirt and a pinafore. The shirt was made of a polyester fabric and a pinaforce was made of a suiting material. Owing to the heat and humidity in Mumbai the fabric was found unsuitable. The dress also became discoloured upon daily wash. The school received complaints from parents to change the uniform to a different fabric. The issue was therefore discussed in the PTA. The change in uniform, therefore, was made jointly with representatives of the parents and after extensive deliberation, the concern of the School was only to adopt a distinctive design in a comfortable fabric for use by the students.
The School selected Anukool Selections not only because it was in the business of providing school uniforms to several reputed schools in Mumbai, but also because its rates were most competitive."
3. In the purchase of uniforms from single retailer, the respondent school wanted the parents to buy a standard uniform so as to preempt the possibility of as many uniforms as there be students, as it will adversely affect the image both of the school as well of the students.
4. In view of the above it is contended that the school merely made arrangements while providing service of the education and has not indulged in any practice relating to the providing of services and the impugned decision does not involve trade practice which has the effect of preventing, distorting or restricting competition.
5. We have heard Mr. S.B. Lal Saxena, Authorised Representative of the complainant. In view of the explanation given by the respondent school, we do not find any ground to continue the present proceedings as the practice of providing uniforms as stated does not in any manner constitute restrictive trade practice within the ambit of the provisions of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The present complaint is, therefore, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.