MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---This appeal under section 20 of the Monopolies Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970 is directed against the order dated 27-8- 2004 passed by the respondent, imposing a penalty of Rs.20,000 on the undertaking of Messrs Venus. Pharma, the appellant.
2. The appellant is a Company Limited by shares and is involved in manufacturing of Pharmaceutical under Drugs Act, 1976. Appellant is an "Undertaking" within the meaning of section 2(1)(m) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970 and was issued a notice by the respondent to furnish certain information under section 21 of the Ordinance through notice No.69 dated 4-10-2003.. Appellant responded to the notice with the plea that its assets were less than Fifty Millions rupees thus it was not liable to registration under section 16(1)(d) of the Ordinance.
Appellant allegedly did not supply the requisite information whereupon a reminder was issued by the respondent, which also remained unattended. Case was fixed for hearing on many dates but appellant was represented only on 17-8-2004, with the explanation that the schedule of the requisite information was not provided to it. Respondent-Authority found the explanation unsatisfactory and accordingly imposed a penalty of Rs.30,000 to the appellant through impugned order dated 27-8-2004. The appeal was admitted to regular hearing' and after completion of record, has now been placed for final hearing. Respondent in response to notice by this Court appeared through Mr. Muhammad Aslam Zar, Advocate/ Standing Counsel for the Federal Government.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record appended herewith. Respondent-Authority invoked its jurisdiction under section 21 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, which for convenience/ready reference is reproduced below:- "21. Power to call for information relating to undertakings.---Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in'force, the Authority, may by general or special order call upon any person for the time being responsible for the conduct of the affairs of an undertaking to furnish periodically or as and when required any information concerning the activities of the undertaking, including information relating to its organization, business, trade practices, management and connection with any other undertaking which the Authority may consider necessary or useful for the purposes of this Ordinance."
4. A bare perusal of the above detailed provisions of law depicts that the respondent-Authority could call upon the "undertaking" to furnish information concerning its activities, relating to its organization: business, trade, Practice and _ Management through general order passed under section 7 of of the said Ordinance or special order in terms of sections 11 and 12 thereof.
Undisputedly, no order either special or general was ever passed or conveyed to the appellant. In absence of any order, as noted above, appellant could not have been proceeded against, in terms of section 19 of the Ordinance (ibid), where under the penalty could be imposed by the respondent-authority, requiring the appellant to pay to the Federal Government an amount not exceeding Rs.1,00,000 had there been failure to comply with any of its orders made under the Ordinance. The provisions of section 19 of the Ordinance under discussion reads as under:-- "19. Penalty.---(1) The Authority may, by order, direct any person or undertaking to pay the (Federal) Government by way of penalty such sum not exceeding one- lakh of rupees as may be specified in the order if, after giving the person or undertaking concerned an opportunity of being heard, it determines that such persons or undertaking." (a) has failed to comply with any order of the Authority made under this Ordinance, or has wilfully failed to register as required by the provisions of this Ordinance, or ---"
5. Language of section. 19 above reproduced, is unambiguous and equips the authority/power to direct any person/undertaking to pay the amount of penalty, in case of violation of any order of the authority made under the Ordinance and this order is relateable to general/special order referred to in its section 21 and was to be passed under the already discussed provisions. This order was to be passed. After 'hearing the person being penalized but hearing was apparently provided to the appellant.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent referred to certain letters/notices issued by the. Deputy/Joint Registrar of the Authority but those cannot be termed as order passed by the authority thus, there was no question of noncompliance by the appellant, as per section 21 of the.
Ordinance 1970. Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 confers an inalienable right to protection of law to every citizen of this country, which cannot be snatched in derogation of law applicable. Question as to whether letters/ notices issued by the Deputy/Joint Registrar of the respondent authority were general or special orders in terms of sections 7, 11 and 12 of the Ordinance, was not attended while passing the impugned order wherefrom it also appears that the appellant was not provided an opportunity of hearing as its presence has also not been marked therein. The appellant was proceeded against under the punitive provisions of the Ordinance, which had to be strictly construed, and in absence of any lapse those should not have been utilized to unnecessarily punish the "undertakings".. Scan of record and impugned order revealed that controversy was not correctly put to rest and the entire lis was not comprehended, as canvassed by the appellant before this Court, thus the impugned order being tainted with patent illegalities, is not sustainable at law.
7. For the reasons noted above, instant appeal is bound to succeed and is accordingly accepted.
Impugned order dated 27-8-2004 is set aside and case is remitted back to the respondent- authority for fresh decision of the same in light of the observations made above and the law applicable. There will be no order as to costs.