The court established the validity of the notice of inquiry under Section 10(a)(iv) and the legality of Regulation 73(5) in the context of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.

( 1 ) BY this petition field under Article226 of the Constitution the petitioner, a public limited company. engaged in the manufacturc- of paper seek to have anotice of inquiry issued by the Monopolies and Restrictivetrade Pra. ctices Commission, the second respondent (tor short the Commission ) and the further order of the Commissionrefusing, to set aside the said notice of inquiry and the proceedings in pursuance thereto quashed.

( 2 ) THE facts which are in brief may be set out.

( 3 ) ON 3-6-1985 the Commission issued a notice undersection 10 (a) (i) and 10 (a) (iv) and Section 37 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for short the Act ) and Regulation 58 of the Monopolies and Restrictivetrade Practices Commission Regulations. 1974 (for short the Regulations ) ordering that an inquiry be instituted againstthe petitioner to inquire into certain trade practices allegedagainst the petitioner and it those trade practices had ormight have the effect of preventing/distorting or restrictingcompetition or having the. effect of imposing unjustified costsor restriction. s on the consumers and if such trade practiceswere prejudicial to public interest. It was mentioned in thenotice of inquiry that a complaint under Section 10 (a) (i) ofthe Act had been received aganst the petitioner by the Commission and that the Commission had also received information alleging certain restrictive trade practices being indulgedin by the petitioner. The complaint and the information werereferred to the Director General as defined in Section 2 (c)of the Act under Section 11 of the Act for the purpose ofinvestigation and report. The Director General submittedtwo reports. On eamination of the complaint and the reportsit appeared to the Commission that the petitioner, a manufacturer of paper and paper products had appointed wholesalers/stockists/distributors for the purpose of distribution of itsproducts. It was also found:

(A) That the petitioner was supplying popular varietiesof paper to favourite wholesalers or stockists andhad denied supply of such variets to otherwholesalers.

(B) That the petitioner had also refused to supply even-non-popular varieties to some of its wholesalers.

(C) That the petitioner had permitted its favourite wholesalers/stoekists to charge prices from the consumers in excess of fair selling prices fixed for its products.

(D) That the petitioner had resorted to discriminationamong the wholesalers in the matter relating tothe extent of credit facilities granted to them.

(E) That the petitioner had been demanding depositsfrom wholesalers in a discriminatory manner.

(F) That the petitioner had also demanded in advanceblank cheques from some of the wholesaler- forsupply of goods.

(G) That the. petitioner discouraged or prevented itswholesalers or distributors from submitting competing quotations without its permission with regardto supply of paper and paper products in response to tenders called for by certain parties.

THE complaint under Section 10 (a) (i) was filed by variousdistributors/dealers nmnberinag thirty one who are marketingand selling paper manufactured and supplied by the petitioner. As mentioned in the notice of inquiry, this complaint wassent by the Commission to the Director General for preliminary investigation and report. On receipt of the notice ofinquiry the petitioner filed, an application before the Commission praying that. the notice of inquiry be set aside andthe proceedings in pursuance thereto quashed. It was submittedbefore the Commission that issue of notice of inquiry simultaneously under two sub-clauses, namely, 10 (a) (i) and10 (a) (iv) was void ab initio because all the four sub-clausesot, Section 10. (a) were exclusive and independent and couldnot be combined with one and the. other and therefore, thecommission lacked inherent jurisdiction in the matter of initiation of the inquiry and the proceedings, thereunder, It wassubmitted that the notice of inquiry coul