Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
Director General Of Investigation And ... vs Laxmangarh Gas Service on 13 December, 2001
ORDER
R.L. Sudhir, Member
1. On a complaint received from certain consumers, the Director General of Investigation and Registration (DG in short) investigated the allegations made in the complaint and filed an application under Section 10(a)(iii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (referred to as the MRTP Act hereafter). DG's conclusion in the aforesaid application is that the respondent has been indulging in restrictive trade practices within the meaning of Section 33(l)(b) and Section 2(o)(ii) of the MRTP Act, the respondent has been indulging in restrictive trade practices within the meaning of Section 33(l)(b) and Section 2(o)(ii) of the MRTP Act.
2. To state the facts in brief, the respondent namely, M/s. Laxmangarh Gas Service, Sikar, Rajasthan is a distributor appointed by the Indian Oil Corporation, for sale and distribution of refilled gas cylinders, release of new gas connections and sale of hot plates and other accessories. During his investigation, DG noticed certain irregularities in the business transactions of the respondent which can be summarised up as follows :
(i) The respondent is charging rates higher than the rates fixed for gas cylinders.
(ii) The respondent is not following the principle of first-come-first-serve basis and gas connections are given in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.
(iii) The respondent is indulging in tie-up sale by compelling the allottees of the new gas connections to buy gas stoves from the respondent.
3. The DG having made out a prima facie case, a Notice of Enquiry (NOE in short) was issued to the respondent. Despite adequate opportunities given, the respondent neither filed a reply to the NOE nor entered appearance in the Court. Consequently proceedings were set ex-parte against the respondent vide Commission's order dated 14th July, 1992. In view of this, arguments were heard ex-parte and in the absence of any defence put up by the respondent a 'cease and desist' order was passed on 30.9.1994. On an application moved by the respondent under Section 13(2) of the MRTP Act, the aforesaid ex-parte order was recalled and the respondent was given fresh opportunity to file a reply to the NOE. In its reply, the respondent denied the allegations made in the NOE. On completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed :
(a) Whether the respondent has been or is indulging in restrictive trade practices alleged in the NOE ?
(c) Relief.
4. At the evidence stage, although the DG filed a list of witnesses, he failed to procure their affidavits and file the same in the Commission despite issue of summons and bailable warrants. As a result DG had to willy-nilly rely on the sketchy evidence filed along with its application referred to before. Since DG did not file any fresh evidence in support of his allegations, the respondent also considered it unnecessary to file any evidence to counter the same and the matter was thus posted for final arguments.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties and have also perused the facts on record. While the DG's Counsel forcefully reiterated the allegations made in the application, he was handicapped to substantiate the same in the absence of supporting evidence. All the same he invited our attention to the details given in DG's application to show that the order of seniority was not followed in the allotment of gas connections and supply of refilled gas cylinders. Learned Counsel for the respondent referred to the reply of the respondent and the enclosures attached thereto and clarified that for allotment of gas connections the respondent had followed the procedure prescribed by the Indian Oil Corporation. In pursuance of this procedure applications were invited for allotment of gas connections and thereafter a seniority list was drawn up by the District Supply Officer by draw of lots. He further submitted that gas connections were released in accordance with the seniority list thus prepared, depending on the applicants fulfilling the requisite formalities. He also clarified that there have been instances where notices were issued to the applicants to complete the requisite formalities but some of them took lot of time for doing the same and as a result of this, gas connections were released to those who were issued notices later but completed all the formalities earlier than the former. As regards the complaint of the consumers, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that some one had misused the signatures of some consumers obtained on a blank paper on the pretext of sending a representation to the State Government to improve the local health conditions. In proof thereof, the respondent has filed affidavits of those very complainants in which they have denied having made any complaint against the respondent to the DG. Other points raised by the DG in his application have also been satisfactorily answered by the respondent in its reply to the NOE.
6. In short, the allegations made by the DG in his application filed under Section 10(a)(iii) of the MRTP Act, remain unsubstantiated due to lack of supporting evidence. On the contrary, the respondent has exposed the falsity of the allegations made in the complaint which forms the basis of DG's investigation. We also cannot ignore the affidavits filed by the alleged complainants in which they have denied their association with the complaint received by the DG. The clarification given by the respondent also sets at rest the doubts about the discriminatory and arbitrary allotment of gas connections and supply of refilled gas cylinders similarly there is no evidence of record to support the DG's allegation about the tie-up sales allegedly resorted to by the respondent.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, no case of restrictive trade practices is made out against the respondent. In the result, DG's application under Section 10(a)(iii) of the MRTP Act fails. The Notice of Enquiry stands discharged with no order as to costs.