Ion Exchange (india) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.
BHARUCHA, J. Leave granted.
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 p
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 ther'ilof 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
atid Desist Order, which was passed. What is objected to on behalf of the G
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."
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 H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A Court considered the provisions of Section .;!6-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."
The appellant is in appeal by special leave. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the appellant that Section 36-B. as it read at the relevant time,
clearly conferred no power on the Commission to issue the impugned direction.
Even the amended Section 36-B, which really had no application to the
D particular case, did not confer on the Commission the power to give such
direction. Emphasis was laid on the fact that the direction, whether as issued
by the Commission or as amended by the High Court, would operate for all
time to come. It was also submitted that the Commission had ample powers
to deal with any infraction of its Cease and Desist Orders. The learned
Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents. emphasized the
E amended provision upon which the High Court had relied and submitted that
there was power in the Commission to issue the impugned direction.
Section 36-D, as it originally stood, read as follows : "36-D(I) The
Commission may inquire into any unfair trade practice which may
come before it for inquiry and, if, after such inquiry, it is of opinion
that the practice is prejudicial to the public interest, or to the interest
of the consumer or consumers generally, it may, by order direct that-
(a) the practice shall be discontinued or shall not be repeated; and
(b) any agreement relating to such unfair trade practice shall be void
G or shall stand modified in respect thereof in such manner as may be
specified in the Order.
(2) The Commission may, instead of making any order under this
section, permit any party to carry on any trade practice, if it so applies
and take such steps within the time specified by the Commission as
H may be necessary to ensure that the trade practice is no longer
ION EXCHANGE (INDIA) LTD. v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.J 563
prejudicial to the public interest or to the interest of any consumer or A
consumers generally, and, in any such case, if the Commission is
satisfied that necessary steps have been taken within the time so
specified, it may decide not to make any order under this section in
respect of that trade practice,
(3) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) in respect of any B
trade practice which is expressly authorised by any law for the time
being in force."
This is the provision which ruled at the relevant time. There is, very clearly,
no empowennent of the Commission thereunder to issue a direction of the
kind which is impugned. C
The amended provision, upon which the High Court rested its order
reads thus:
"( c) any infonnation, statement or advertisement relating to such unfair
trade practice, shall be disclosed , issued or published, as the case
may be, in such manner as may be specified in the order." D
The amended provision cannot be so read as enabling the Commission to
require all advertisements that the appellant might issue in the future to be
approved by the Commission in advance. The requirement to disclose
information relates only to the unfair trade practice then under inquiry. As to
public interest, the Commission is sufficiently anned under the Act with E
powers to take action against those who breach its Cease and Desist Orders.
We do not think that it requires the additional power of supervision of the
kind indicated either in the impugned direction of the Commission or in the
order under challenge to effectively carry out its obligations. The Commission
cannot incorporate such direction in its final Cease and Desist Orders. F
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the
High Court under appeal is set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellants
before the High Court is allowed to the extent aforestated. No order as to
costs.
R.K.S. Appeal allowed. G