A preliminary investigation by the Director General under Section 11 or Section 36 C of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 is not a condition precedent to the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 12 B of the Act.

( 1 ) THE short but interesting question raised in these writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is whether a preliminary investigation, as envisaged in section 11 or section 36 C of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for short the Act) is a condition precedent to the issue of process requiring the owner of an undertaking or any other person to show cause as to why an order directing payment of compensation for the loss or damage caused as a result of Monopolistic or Restrictive or Unfair trade practice carried on by him be not made.

( 2 ) SINCE the question involved is common in all the three matters, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 3 ) TO appreciate the controversy we shall treat the facts in civil writ no. 4121/95 as illustrative.

( 4 ) THE petitioner company, engaged in the business of supply and erection of refinery plants etc, installed for respondent no. 2, the claimant, a 50 MT capacity edible oil refinery plant. According to the petitioner, the plant was duly commissioned but the said respondent did not comply with their obligations; did not supply the raw material, electricity etc to conduct continuous testing for running of plant; obstructed its service personnel, with the result that the defects in the plant, if any, could not be rectified. It is alleged that without taking recourse to the arbitration proceedings under the arbitration clause, contained in the contract, in order to exert unwarranted pressure on the petitioner, the said respondent filed an application under section 12 B read with section 36a of the Act, alleging that the petitioner had supplied defective, under- capacity plant and machinery of a make different from the one approved and ordered by the respondent, had thus, indulged in unfair trade practice within the meaning of section 36 A (i), (ii), (iv), (vii) and (viii) and as a consequence thereof claimed a compensation of Rs. 110. 48 lacs, for the alleged loss suffered by them. On receipt of the application the impugned show cause notice was issued by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Commission), to the petitioner which led to the filing of the present petition, seeking quashing of the notice and setting aside of the proceedings in pursuance thereof. The impugned notice is primarily challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the commission issuing it has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application or issue notice thereon without having the matter investigated by the Director General under Section 11 or Section 36 C of the Act, which, it is claimed, is a condition precedent to the commission issuing notice to the defaulting party.

( 5 ) ON being served with the notice of motion along with ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the commission from proceeding further in respondent no. 2 s application, the said respondent filed their counter affidavit, opposing the writ petition, inter alia, on the grounds that no substantial question of law pertaining to the inherent jurisdiction of the commission arises warranting interference by this court; the commission like any other court or authority, is competent to decide the question relating to its own jurisdiction; the allegations in the application before the commission ex facie attract the provisions of section 36a read with section 12b of the Act and it will be open to the petitioner to urge all the points raised in the petition before the commission including that of lack of jurisdiction of the commission, which issue could be decided as a preliminary issue and the commission is not obligated to have the matter investigated by the Director General by making a reference either under section 11 or 36 C of the Act, which, it is claimed, is not a condition precedent to the commission issuing notice to the person from whom compensation under section 12 B of the Act is claimed.

( 6 ) WE have hea