International Institute of Telecom Technology Society v. Director General of Investigation and Registration

1. Petitioners are the Chairman and Honorary Secretary of International Institute of Telecom Technology Society (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner-Society) who are seeking quashing of criminal complaint under Section 49(1) of The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (Annexure P-11) in this petition.

2. Petitioners assert that petitioner-Society is a non-profit educational society, who has established number of educational institutions with the approval of concerned authorities i.e. the AICTE, Punjab Technical University and Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and 2013:DHC:6335 Pensions, Government of India. It is averred by petitioners that Sh. Katarya had made complaint (Annexure P-1) on 29th November, 2004 to The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission alleging deficiency in service. Petitioners’ claim that Notice of 30th August, 2005 (Annexure P-7) issued to petitioners was responded to vide Reply of 5th September, 2005 (Annexure P-8). Petitioners also rely upon copy of letter of 25th March, 2004 (Annexure P-10) written by concerned Under Secretary to the Advisor, AICTE relating to the grievances made by Sh. Katarya in respect of which impugned complaint has been filed.

3. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners had placed on record certified copy of Competition Appellate Tribunal's order of 12th March, 2013 as Annexure A-1 vide which it has been declared that educational institutions do not come within the purview of The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (henceforth referred to as MRTP Act) as there is no element of competition involved and proceedings under the MRTP Act were closed. Petitioners' counsel had also relied upon Apex Court's order in Civil Appeal No.5331 of 1999 titled Modern Trading Co. (Delhi) P. Ltd. versus Wigan & Leigh College & Ors. of 11th August, 2005 (Annexure A-2) to contend that Competition Appellate Tribunal's order holding that MRTP Act would not apply to educational institutions has attained finality. Thus, it was contended on behalf of petitioners that continuance of proceedings arising out of the complaint in question alleging violation of provisions of MRTP Act, is an abuse of process of the court.

4. During the course of hearing, Mr. Malik, learned counsel for respondent had disputed that petitioners have not furnished the requisite information and had submitted that it is only a show-cause notice which is issued to petitioners and instead of pursuing these proceedings, petitioners ought to respond to the show-cause notice. It was asserted that M/s. Elder Electronics Ltd. appears to be a group company of petitioners. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent it was maintained that educational institutions are covered by the provisions of MRTP Act.

5. At the hearing, it was submitted by learned counsel for respondent that petitioners ought to raise the pleas taken herein before the trial court and these places can be considered at the appropriate stage and in any case, petitioners can take the stand taken herein before respondent while responding to the show-cause notice. Thus, dismissal of this petition is sought.

6. Both the sides were heard and impugned complaint as well as the material on record and the decisions cited have been duly considered and thereafter, it becomes evident that the jurisdictional plea taken by petitioners is required to be dealt with by this Court in view of the legal position as reiterated by the Apex Court in Modern Trading (supra), which is as under: - "The Commission exercising its jurisdiction under the Act has held that the subject-matter of the complaint pertains to education and the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. We agree with the finding recorded by the Commission."

7. Infact, at the hearing, respondent's counsel could not distinguish the decisions (Annexure A-1 & A-2) relied upon by petitioners nor could cite any decision to the contrary. In face of the afore-noted decisions (Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2), this Court finds that continuance of proceedings arising out of impugned complaint alleging violation of provisions of MRTP Act against petitioner-Society, which is a non-profit educational society, is an abuse of the process of the court. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and impugned complaint as well as the proceedings arising out of it are hereby quashed.

JUDGE DECEMBER 09, 2013 s