ORDER MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- According to this /vist petition, the petitioner is an undertaking within the beaning of the Monopoly and Restrictive Trade practices (Control and Prevention)
Ordinance, 1970 and laving assets in excess of Rs. 300 million is required to burnish information as required by the respondent in exercise of its powers under the Monopoly Control Authority (Supply of Information) Rules, 1995. Some information was sought and was not supplied. As a result proceedings were undertaken against the petitioner and vide order dated 25.9.2001 a penalty of te.
50,000/- imposed under Section 19(1)(a) of the said Ordinance. The petitioner was further called upon to )ay the said amount by 8.11.2001 and also to provide he requisite information by the said date. This was not done and the matter was taken-up on 4.2.2002 by the respondent and a penalty was imposed in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- per day from the date of default till compliance. According to the learned counsel, these proceedings were ex parte and upon acquiring knowledge of the same, the petitioner approached the Respighi&de-nt. A hearing was conducted but vide order dated 25.11.2003 the respondent refused to recall the said orders.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had its head office at Kohat and a registered office at Lahore but the respondent sent the notices at the registered office and that too at a wrong address. According to the learned counsel, the notice had not been served and as such by all means the petitioner has been condemned unheard.
3. I have gone through the copies of the documents, appended with this writ petition. Now the order dated 25.9.2001 goes to show that a show-cause notice was not only served but the petitioner in response sent some documents which did not constitute the requisite information. The case was fixed for hearing at Lahore and the finding recorded is that notice was issued under registered post and the A.D. Receipt bearing signatures of the addressee had been received back. Since no one appeared, the matter was taken-up ex parte. Again in the order dated 4.2.2002 which has been passed by a larger Bench of the respondent, it has been stated that a show-cause notice was issued upon non-compliance of the earlier order intimating the petitioner of the proposed action.
This notice was also sent under registered cover and the A.D. Receipt was received back. The notice was neither replied nor the earlier order was complied with. The matter was fixed for hearing at Islamabad on 30.1.2002 and a notice was sent, it has been observed in the order dated 4.2.2002 that .a fax 22.1.2002 was received stating that the show-cause notice had not been received and a copy was requested which was faxed to the petitioner on 24.1.2002, but no reply was filed, it was in the said circumstances, that the matter was proceeded within. The absence of the petitioner and the order passed on 4.2.2002. I find that the said observations particularly receipt of fax letter from the petitioner and the sending of the copy of the show- cause notice through fax by the respondent to the petitioner have not at all been commented upon in the writ petition. The said factual observations made in the said orders by the respective Benches of the respondent- Authority cannot, therefore, be interfered within these proceedings.
4. The learned counsel then has tried to argue that the said Rules of 1995 are ultra vires of the said Ordinance, However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to substantiate the said contention. On the other hand, I find that the powers stand vested in the respondent- Commission under Section 21 of the said Ordinance to call for any information concerning the activities of the undertaking, the said Rules only provide for the nature and form in which the information is to be provided. The Rules of 1995 have been framed under Section 24 of the Ordinance to carry out the purpose of the said Ordinance and this includes the purpose envisaged by Section 21 of the said Ordinance.
5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.