Bharucha, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellant manufactures water purifiers. It issued advertisements stating that these water purifiers provided 100% safe drinking water instantly and that the water stayed bacteria free in storage. An enquiry was instituted by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission at the behest of its Director General of Investigation and Registration. A Notice of Enquiry was issued to the appellant. At the hearing thereof, the appellant did not contest the allegation made in the Notice of Enquiry and expressed willingness on the very first date of hearing before the Commission to submit to a Cease and Desist Order, which was passed. What is objected to on behalf of the appellant is this further direction of the Commission: "If the respondent wants to issue an advertisement in future about its product, it will get a draft of its advertisement approved by the Commission."
(3.) Impugning the power of the Commission to issue such further direction, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court at Bombay. The High Court considered the provisions of Section 36-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, as amended, and observed that the impugned direction was given to subserve the object of effectively checking repetition of the unfair trade practice affecting a large number of people. The High Court modified the impugned direction thus: "The petitioner-manufacturer shall submit the proposed draft advertisement to the Director General along with the necessary documents supporting or substantiating the contents of the advertisement. If they do not receive any objection from the Director General within four weeks, the Petitioner-manufacturer shall be at liberty to publish the said advertisement." ;