Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(13) When therefore Section 10(b) empowers the Commission to enquire into monopolistic trade practices on its own it is futile for petitioners to contend that it is the Central Government alone which is competent to enquire whether there is M.U. and whether it is indulging in M.T.P. When the Commission can enquire into any M.T.P., it necessarily means that it can enquire into both these aspects. The effort of the petitioner to restrict the scope of enquiry under Section 10(b) only to the second part of section 31(1) i.e. to enquire whether M.T.P. prevail in respect of any goods or services is not warranted by the language of the statute. As a matter of fact the power of the Commission under Section 10(b) would extend to inquiring into any monopolistic trade practices indulged into either by a M.U. or by a non M.U. In that sense the power of the Commission under Section 10(b) of the Act is wider than the power of the Central Government; the later can make a reference under Section 31(1) only if the M.T.Ps. are being indulged into by a M.U. and not if the M.T.P. is being indulged by a non M.U. There is thus nothing wrong in both the Central Government and the Commission having such concurrent powers in the matter of M.T.P. being indulged into by a M.U. because in the matter of monopoly it is possible that an information may be available with' the Central Government, which may not be available with the Commission and unless the Central Government possesses such a power to refer the matter to the Commission the M.T.P. may avoid scrutiny and thus avoid being proceeded against with a necessary consequential damage to the national economy. It would be strange if having constituted such a high powered Commission as it is bound to do by virtue of the mandate of the Act the Central Government was to be held to have the last word in the determination of the important aspect of whether an undertaking was a monopolistic undertaking and whether it was indulging in M.T.Ps. The determination of these matters requires collection of detailed information and knowledge into various aspects of business, finance, statistics etc. This requires a deep study and a vast reservoir of facts so as to be able to finally determine the matter. To accept the argument of the petitioners that this finding can be given only by the Central Government would be to go against the very object of the Act which is to constitute an impartial and independent Commission. free from the political and other pulls unlike the (Government of the day which is necessarily subject to such influence. it could not be argued, nor indeed in fairness to the counsel for the petitioners, was it argued that there was any requirement of justice that the Commission should give a hearing before deciding to hold an enquiry on its own under Section 10(b) of the Act. What logic therefore, is in the argument that if decision to enquire by the Commission is not of its own, but on reference by the Central Government the former should give a hearing. .In principle we are not able to find any. At this preliminary stage it is a matter of discretion with the Central Government enabling it to act if in its opinion a set of given circumstances arc found to exist. We are, therefore, satisfied that requirements of natural justice do not require any hearing to be given to the undertaking before making a reference under- Section. 31(1) of the Act. The whole controversy including the essential condition of there being a M.U. or it indulging in M.T.P. are at large before the Commission and can be canvassed fully before it. The regulations. framed by die Commission for procedure for enquiring into reference received under Section 31 provides detailed hearings and oppertunities to the undertakings concerned. Regulation 36(5) (7) even provides for the Commission calling the concerned undertakings for such- discussion as it may consider necessary fur the enquiry and also permits it to depute its officers to meet its .such officer for discussion relevant to the reference. In the public hearings that may be fixed the concerned undertakings have full right to participate even by counsel and file any documents and material that they like. Thus the procedure before the Commission is in a way more elaborate and yet, informal than even before a regular court of law, the kind of informality indicated by holding discussions with the parties and visiting places is not to be found in proceedings before ordinary trial courts. This is as it should be, because the matter that is being examined before the Commission is not a matter of two adversaries fighting their litigation before a regular court. The matters and stakes raise high' policy decisions which concerns the economy and the well being of the country and it is only' proper that full discussion and fuller presentation of the material be available to the Commission in order to assist it to come to a right conclusion. But all this when the enquiry starts before the Commission and not otherwise. In our view the scope of enquiry before the Commission is not limited and encompasses all the pleas of fact and public interest mentioned in sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 31 respectively. We are thus satisfied that no hearing is necessary before the Central Government at that stage and the grievance on account of denial of natural justice is misplaced and without merit.