Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J. - (1.) This rule is directed against two orders dated July 18, 1974, and September 6, 1974, by which the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission adjourned the hearing of the petitioners' application dated 11th March, 1974, and refused to raise preliminary issues Nos. 5 and 6.
(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is an existing company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. Since 1966, petitioner No. 2 carries on business as sole selling agent of the petitioner No. 1. By an agreement dated April 1, 1971, petitioner No. 2 was reappointed as sole selling agent for a further period of five years. On June 1, 1970, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as " the said Act "), was brought into force. On 1st August, 1970, the Central Government established the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"). On 30th August, 1972, respondent No. 6, Registrar of Restrictive Trade Agreements filed an application, being Application No. 6 of 1972, under Section 10(a)(iii) of the said Act, alleging that the petitioners were indulging in various restrictive trade practices specified therein. On 6th September, 1972, the Commission issued a notice to the petitioners intimating that an enquiry under Section 37 of the Act was proposed to be held. On September 20, 1972, both the petitioners entered appearance. They filed their statement of cases on November 1, 1972, before the Commission. On November 13, 1973, the Commission framed, by consent of parties, ten preliminary issues. Thereafter, on February 16, 1974, the petitioners submitted before the Commission that they would hold a discussion with the respondent No. 6 with a view to find out modification to certain clauses of the said agreement dated 1st April, 1971. The Commission allowed time to hold discussion. The petitioners filed an application on March 11, 1974, by which they prayed to the Commission for directions for implementation of the proposed modification sought to be made in the said agreement. The Commission by its order dated July 18, 1974, adjourned the final disposal of the said application upon the view that that was not the proper stage for exercising powers under Section 37(2) of the Act. On 3rd of August, 1974, the petitioners filed another application praying for cancellation of the said agreement dated 1st April, 1971, and requested the Commission to take into consideration the said application, while giving decision regarding issues Nos. 5 and 6. By a memorandum dated August 20, 1944, the Secretary of the Commission intimated to the petitioners that the Commission had rejected the petitioners' said application dated August 3, 1974. The Commission, thereafter, by its order, dated September 6, 1974, came to the conclusion that the said issues, namely, Nos. 5 and 6, did not arise.
(3.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders moved this court in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present rule.;