M/s. Noon Sugar Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as the `undertaking'), was directed by the Monopoly Control Authority (hereinafter referred to as the `Authority'), vide its Order, dated May 10, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the `Order'), to release 8.33% of its production every month, commencing form October 2005. The undertaking was, therefore, required to release 58.31% of its production by April 30, 2006 (8.33% x 7 months). Instead it released 41.47% which was 16.85% less than the prescribed percentage and thus it did not comply with the Order of the Authority.
2. The Authority, therefore, issued Hearing Notice to the undertaking on June 17, 2006, under Section 19 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control & Prevention)
Ordinance 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the `Ordinance'), to show cause as to why appropriate action under Section 19 of the Ordinance may not be taken against it.
3. On the date of hearing Mr. Faisal /slam, Advocate/Counsel for the undertaking appeared before the Authority and argued the case. He contended as under:- that the undertaking started its production from November 10, 2005 and produced 1013 MT sugar out of which 444.2 MT was lifted upto November 30, 2005. Till May 31, 2006 it had produced 24,660 tons, out of which 11,260 tons was lifted i.e. 45.66% of its production. /f the crushing year is taken from November to October, then it had substantially complied with the Order.
The contention of the undertaking is not tenable. /t had "carry over stock of 627 tons; therefore, its releases should have started in October 2005 and continued, thereafter, on monthly basis @ of 8.33 % per month of its production. By end April 2006, it should have released 58.31 % of its production, whereas it released only 41.47 %. The undertaking continued to indulge in restrictive trade practices.
Lifting of sugar upto June 15, 2006, as per undertaking's own data, was only 48.41 % against the monthly percentage of 70.80 (October 2005 to mid June 2006). thatthe undertaking submitted a request to the Authority for consideration of its sugar year December-- November but no reply was received by it. The contention of the undertaking is not tenable. The undertaking has itself stated that it started crushing from November 10, 2005, producing 1013 MT sugar during November 2005. /t, therefore, can not claim its sugar year from December -- November and since it had "carry over stock from the previous sugar year, its year has to be from October 2005 to September 2006. that enquiry is necessary before issuing an Order under Section 19 of MRTPO 1970.
This contention is not sustainable. An Order under Section 19 relates to imposition of penalty when an undertaking fails to comply with an Order of the Authority. Section 19 does not envisage an enquiry for the simple reason that it is a penali%ing Section. iv). that the Order of the Authority dated May 09, 2006 is against the provisions of Section 24(A) of General Clauses Act.
The contention of the undertaking is not tenable. Section 24(A) of the General Clauses Act is reproduced below: "24A Exercise of power under enactments----(1) where, by or under any enactment, a power to make any Order or give any direction is conferred on any authority, officer or person such shall be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment.
(2) the authority, office or person making any Order or issuing any direction under the powers conferred by or under any enactment shall, so far as necessary or appropriate, give reasons for making the Order or, as the case may be, for issuing the direction and shall provide a copy of the Order or, as the case may be, the direction to the person affected prejudicially."
The Order of the Authority, dated May 09, 2006, is fully reasoned, justified and lawful. The monthly percentage of 8.33% for releasing/lifting of sugar by the sugar mills was adopted on the contention of the counsel of the undertakings in lieu of provincial average as a reasonable benchmark. The Authority's direction to release 8.33% of the production per month was reasonable and in public interest to ensure that there is adequate supply of sugar in the market.
4. The counsel requested the Authority for one day's adjournment so that he may prepare for arguments. The Authority was of the opinion that he should have prepared prior to appearing before it. However, a short adjournment of two hours was allowed, which the counsel declined to accept.
5. The Authority, after considering the facts of the case, submissions of the counsel of the undertaking and the fact that the undertaking had not complied with the Order, in terms of the powers vested in it under Section 19 of the Ordinance, directs the undertaking to: Pay as penalty a sum of Rs 100,000 (Rupees One Hundred Thousand) under the relevant head of account within 7 days of the receipt of this Order, and /n view of undertaking's continuing failure, pay a further penalty of Rs 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand) for every day, starting from the date of issue of this Order and upto the date the undertaking releases sugar commensurate with the monthly percentages. The penalty shall be paid on fortnightly basis. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.