RANGANATH MISRA - (1.) A three Judge Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 297 of 1990 made an order on 20/04/1990, to the following effect. This is an application under Article 32 filed as a public interest litigation for a direction to the Union of India to fill up the posts of Chairman and Members of the Commission under- the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. Notice was issued on this petition on 28/02/1990 and service had been effected before 26th of March, 1990. The Writ Petition was adjourned on 26th of March, 1990 till 9th of April, 1990 to enable Union of India to file its counter-affidavit. Such affidavit has, however, not been filed till today. When the matter was listed yesterday, we were told that if the matter be called today a statement could be made as to when the posts shall be filled up. Counsel for the Union of India says that within a month's time these appointments are likely to he made. It is not disputed that the Chairman of the Commission died in harness on 11-12-1989. One of its members retired on 31-12-1989. The third member has retired on 28-2-1990. Mr. Manchanda, the other member who was acting Chairman retired on 22-3-1,990. It is said that the term of one member only has been extended after notice was issued in the case. Under the Act the Commission becomes functional with a Bench of two members and in view of the fact that it has only one existing member for some time, the Commission has not been functioning. It is not disputed that the Commission is the king-pin for the functioning of the M RTP Act and is the statutory mechanism for enforcing the law brought about for public benefit. Its provisions are intended to provide protection to consumers and control monopolies. In these circumstances we have not been able to appreciate why the Commission has been rendered non-functional by keeping the various posts vacant. We direct that the Commission shall be appropriately constituted within three weeks from today. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. At the instance of the Union of India the learned vacation Judge on 25-5-90 extended the time to comply with the direction given in the Writ Petition till 7th of July, 1990.
(2.) ON the allegation that the order of this Court of 20/04/1990, was not complied with by 7th of July, 1990, a petition for contempt was filed in this Court on 7th of August, 1990. ON 21-9-90 notice was issues on the petition and on 12-10-90 the following order was made: "Issue notice on the Contempt Petition to Mr. A. N. Verma, Secretary of Industry and Company Affairs to appear and show cause on 22-10-1990 why he should not be convicted for Contempt of Court for non-compliance of the Court's order dated 20-4-1990. We are satisfied that contempt has been committed, therefore, no preliminary notice has been issued." An affidavit was filed on 20-10-90 by the contemner Shri A. N. Verma, Secretary, Department of Company Affairs, Ministry of Industries of the Union Government where it was averred that certain steps were taken for the re-constitution of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission set up under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) but the appointment of the Chairman could not be finalised as the Judge to whom the offer had been made ultimately declined. It was pleaded: "It will be seen from the above facts and circumstances that the Deponent did his best to obtain orders of appointments of Chairman and the Members of the M.R.T.P. Commission as per directions of this Hon'ble Court, but the appointments could not be made despite all efforts and due diligence. There has also been no wilful negligence or intention to disobey the orders of this Hon'ble Court in the matter. The Deponent accordingly seeks the indulgence of this Hon'ble Court and submits that in special circumstances of the case, the Deponent or the Respondent may not be held guilty of disobedience of the directions of this Hon'ble Court and that further reasonable time may be granted for completing the procedure of appointment of the Chairman and the Members." At the hearing of the motion for contempt learned Solicitor General appeared for the contemner and the contemner was also present in the Court. Counsel fairly conceded that this Court has rightly held in its order dated 25/10/1990, that by not constituting the Commission by appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Commission on or before 7/07/1990, the Court's direction has been violated. He, however, maintained that steps were taken for constituting the Commission as detailed in the affidavit and they constitute extenuating circumstances; and, therefore, no serious view should be taken of the lapse.
(3.) THE Act, as the Statement of Objects and Reasons shows, is a statute to ensure that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of economic power to the common detriment and to prohibit such monopolistic and restrictive trade practices as are prejudicial to public interest. THE commission is the kingpin for the operation of the statutory scheme. Section 5 of the Act provides that the Commission shall consist of a Chairman and not less than two and not more than eight other members. By non-filling of the post of Chairman and members at the time of the original order was made, the Commission then left with a single member, in view of the statutory procedure, was not able to act as the Commission. The order of this Court made on the 20th of April, 1990, fixing three weeks' time for compliance should have sufficiently conveyed to the Union of India that immediacy is involved in the matter. The Central Government was aware of the position that compliance within the specified time was important and, therefore, had approached this Court for extension of time and time had been extended upto 7th of July, 1990. It was the obligation of the Union of India to comply with the direction on order before the expiry of the fresh date. It is conceded that no further extension was obtained, though there was no compliance. In fact no petition for extension of time was ever filed before or after 7th of July, 1990 and even after notice of contempt was served, such step was not considered necessary and the Union Government remained satisfied by indicating in the affidavit of the contemner that extension should be given.;