- (1.) This appeal is against the order of the Monopolies and Restrictive trade Practices Commission dated 15-9-1997.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts are as follows: appellants 2 to 5 are franchisees of Respondents 2 to 4. Appellants 2 to 5 along with others formed a welfare association. It appears that notices of termination were issued to Appellants 2 to 5 between 6-8-1997 and 9-8-1997. The appellants therefore filed an application under Section 10 of the monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "mrtp Act"). They also filed an application under section 12-A for interim relief. The Commission by its order dated 2-9-1997 merely directed notice to issue returnable on 22-9-1997. This notice was served on the respondents concerned. The respondents then immediately got published in the newspapers of 6-9-1997 an advertisement to the effect that the franchise agreements stood terminated. The appellants therefore filed an application under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for urgent relief. It appears that on the date they moved the Commission the earlier bench consisting of the chairman and the member was not available. Therefore the application was moved before another Bench. The other Bench refused to interfere and directed that the matter should be listed before the regular Bench which had earlier heard the matter. The application then came up before the regular Bench which passed the impugned order. The regular bench has considered the action of the appellants in moving the other Bench as an abuse of the process of law and has thus rejected the complaint and discharged the notice. Hence this appeal.
(3.) We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Commission. The commission seems to have lost sight of the fact that after receipt of the notice issued by the Commission, the respondents hastily got published an advertisement in the newspapers. It therefore became necessary for the appellants to again move the Commission. Merely because the earlier Bench is not available does not mean that even in cases of urgency a party cannot apply again. As the earlier Bench was not available, the application was bound to be made before another Bench. There is no abuse of the process of law in such a situation. The Bench should and must consider the complaint and the application on its merits. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the MRTP Commission for a decision on merits. Considering that the matter is old, the Commission shall take up the application for hearing forthwith.;