' Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Monopoly Control Authority ('the Authority') passed an order 'under section 19(1)(a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970 (the Ordinance) on 25-9-2001 imposing a penalty of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) on Messrs Kohat Cement Company Limited which was to be deposited under the relevant head of account by November 8, 2001. However, the Undertaking defaulted and did not pay the penalty by the due date and thus did not comply with the Authority's said order. The Undertaking wilfully and deliberately committed continuing default which attracted the provisions of subsection (2) of section 19 of the Ordinance. As a result the Authority vide its Order dated February 4, 2002 imposed a penalty. Of Rs. 10,000 per day from the date of default i.e. November 9, 2001, under subsection (2) of section 19 of the Ordinance till the compliance to the Authority's ,order dated September 25, 2001. Since the Undertaking did not pay the penalty within the given time and was therefore, in default, the matter was referred to the District Collector for recovery of the outstanding amount as arrears of land revenue.
2. Vide its letter dated October 18, 2002 the Undertaking informed that the principal amount of penalty i.e. Rs.50,000 was paid on 15-10-2002. It also prayed for waiver of the additional- penalty and an opportunity of being heard.
3. According to the request of the Undertaking, the Authority heard it on 9-1-2003 and finally on 23- 8-2003. Mr. Fazal Karim Khattak, General Manager (Planning) and Mr. Muhammad Saleem Sahgal, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, authorized representatives of the Undertaking appeared and argued the case for recall and review of Authority's earlier orders. The learned authorized representatives, however, could not give any cogent reason in support of their pleadings. The Authority is of the considered view, and also informed the authorized representatives accordingly, that after passing the impugned Orders the Authority had become functus officio and was not in a position to review its Orders under the law. The Authority is also of the view that through this machination the Undertaking is attempting to reopen a closed matter whereas the proper course of action should have been to file an appeal within the time limit prescribed in the MRTPO, 1970 which the Undertaking failed to do.