DIRECTOR GENERAL (I & R) Vs. ST. FRANCIS XAVIER SCHOOL, CALCUTTA
LAWS(NR)-1996-6-6
MONO POLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
Decided on June 06,1996

DIRECTOR GENERAL (I AND R) Appellant
VERSUS
ST. FRANCIS XAVIER SCHOOL, CALCUTTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S. Chakravarthy Dr., Member - (1.) THIS shall dispose of the Notice of Enquiry (NOE) issued by this Commission on 15th January '96 charging the respondent St. Francis Xavier School of having indulged in certain restrictive trade practices attracting Section 2(o)(ii) of the MRTP Act, 1969. The basis for the NOE is the application filed by the Director General of Investigation and Registration (DG) under Section 10(a)(iii) of the Act. Briefly the facts are as under:
(2.) THE DG received a complaint from one Shri Ramautar Ganeriwalla stating that the respondent school has been making forcible collection of building funds from students. After making an investigation, the DG has filed an application in this Commission under Section 10(a)(iii) of the Act stating that the respondent had issued a notice dated 7th November, '94 requesting the parents and the guardians of the students to deposit an amount of Rs. 501/ - towards the Building Donation Fund, that the amount was required to be paid by 15th November, 94, that the school's notice clearly stated that admit cards for the second terminal examination would be given only to those who produced the receipt for Rs. 501/ - and that the said notice also requested for at last one advertisement. THE DG has added that the complainant Shri Ganeriwalla deposited the donation amount of Rs. 1,002/ - in respect of his two children studying in the school, that the school had demanded one year's bus fee in advance from the parents and guardians of the students. He has concluded that the Building Donation Fund contribution is in the nature of a 'whip' as it is not voluntary but is coercive and an imposition on the parents and guardians of the school children. He has charged the respondent of manipulating the conditions of rendering services and of imposing unjustified cost on the parents and guardians of the students thus, attracting the provisions of Section 2(o)(ii) of the Act. On the basis of the said application of the DG, the Commission issued the Notice of Enquiry dated 15th January, 96 already referred to, charging the respondent of having indulged in restrictive trade practices within the meaning of Section 2(o)(ii) of the Act and stating that the said restrictive trade practices are prejudicial to public interest. The respondent was directed by the Notice of Enquiry to enter its defence and appear at the hearings of this Commission.
(3.) DESPITE the NOE being sent by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), the respondent refused to receive the same and was, therefore, set ex parte. The DG filed his evidence in the form of the affidavit of Shri V.P. Singhal, Joint Director (Legal) in his office. We gave a hearing to Mr. C. Shanmugam, ADG for the DG.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.