Dr. Muhammad Uzair.-1. The Monopolies! And Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention)
Ordinance, 1970, was promulgated as Ordinance V of 1970, on 26th February, 1970, and came into force on 17th August, 1971. As per Ordinance, the main functions of the Monopoly Control Authority are to prevent and prohibit:
1. Undue concentration of economic power ;
2. Unreasonable monopoly power ; and
3. Unreasonably restrictive trade practices.
2. Section 10 of the Ordinance elaborates the three above mentioned functions by including in the purview of the Authority, the functions such as : {a) to register undertakings, individuals and agreements ;
(b) to conduct enquiries into the general economic conditions of the country, with particular reference to the concentration of economic power and restrictive trade practices ;
(c) to conduct such an enquiry into the affairs of any undertaking or individual as may be necessary for the purposes of this Ordinance;
(d) to make such orders and to do all such things as are necessary for purposes of this Ordinance,
3. In November, 1973, the Monopoly Control Authority conducted an wenquiry under section 10 (b) of the Ordinance into the Shoe Industry. During the enquiry, it came to the knowledge of the Authority that M/s. Majid Enterprises Muridke reportedly possessed a monopolistic position in production and supply of certain types of leather. Since this enterprise was not registered with the Monopoly Control Authority and we did not have any detailed information about this undertaking, M/s. Majid Enterprises, Muridke were asked to furnish certain information under section 21 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control & Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, vide MCA's letter dated February 16, 1974. Instead of replying to the said letter, the enterprise applied for registration with the Authority in Form 1 under the provisions of section 16 (1) () of the Ordinance. However, the information supplied was incomplete. In this application they stated inter alia that they produced leather board but they did not know as to what percentage of the total production in the Province did their products constitute. The covering letter accompanying the application for registration bore the date of February 18, 1974 and was ostensibly written from Muridke. However, the Registration Fee of Rs. 100/- only, was deposited with the State Bank of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, vide Challan No. A1 dated February 23, 1974. Since, however, the reply to Monopoly Control Authority's letter dated February 16, 1974 was not received by the Authority, a reminder was issued on March 25, 1974 which was received by the undertaking on March 29, 1974. According to this letter, they had to supply the information and reply by April 10, 1974. The purpose of seeking the information was to determine whether there existed a case for non-registration under section 16 (1) read with Rule 10 of the Monopoly Control Authority Rules, 1971.
4. Since no reply was received either of the original letter or the reminder, a show cause notice under section 19 of the Ordinance was issued on May 13, 1974. Instead of sending a formal reply to the show cause notice, they wrote a letter bearing the date of May 13, 1974, received on May 15, 1974.
In this letter, the respondents stated, that they had applied for registration under section 16 (1) (a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, before receiving Authority's letter dated February 16, 1974. They further added in the letter that they did not reply to the Authority's letter dated February 16, 1974 under the impression that their application for registration was sufficient to meet all the requirements including a reply to the letter. In this letter dated May 13, 1974, the respondents claimed to receive a verbal reminder from the Authority, as a result of which they checked up their records and wrote this letter informing us of the correct position and claiming that they did not receive any communication from the Authority towards the end of March and requested for a duplicate copy of the same. Since in this letter of May 13, 1974, they had referred to a verbal reminder, the respondents were asked to identify the officer who reminded them verbally or telephonically. The respondent did not identify any officer of the Registration and Legal Department who were in correspondence with the respondents. He however, insisted that this was a telephonic reminder from someone important in the Authority, whose name, he was not prepared to identify. The Member pointed out to the respondent that it was unreasonable, illogical and even unethical to make an allegation against someone in the Authority without being prepared to substantiate the same.
5. On cross questioning, the respondent apologised and admitted that:
(i) their letter ostensibly of February 18, 1974 bearing Treasury Challan of February 23, 1974 could have been ante-dated by the staff;
(ii) their staff was limited and the mistake might have been committed by the Accountant against whom he would take some action ;
(iii) the major cause of the mix-up and non-compliance was the fact that Mr. Irfan Majid, Managing Director of the undertaking concerned i.e., Majid Enterprises was married during the period, when the correspodence took place and later went abroad. The respondent who appeared, namely, Mr. H.A. Majid, father of Mr. Irfan Majid, was only the Chairman and not an operational Executive to possess more detailed knowledge about the way the things were mixed up.
(iv) Mr. H.A. Majid appreciated and felt embarrassed at the fact that he had referred to a telephonic reminder from Monopoly Control Authority in his letter, but was not prepared to identify the officer who made the call.
6. The Authority felt that there were some genuine difficulties, particularly the wedding of Mr. Irfan Majid, Managing Director and the Operative Chief of the undertaking. Taking into consideration Mr. H. A. Majid's confession of short-comings in the office of the respondent, the Authority has decided to impose a penalty of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) to be deposited by the October 5, 1974 ; failing which a further sum of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred only) per day would be payable by the respondent till compliance.