DIRECTOR GENERAL (I And R) vs ST. FRANCIS XAVIER SCHOOL, CALCUTTA

THIS shall dispose of the Notice of Enquiry (NOE) issued by this Commission on 15th January ''96 charging the respondent St. Francis Xavier School of having indulged in certain restrictive trade practices attracting Section 2(o)(ii) of the MRTP Act, 1969. The basis for the NOE is the application filed by the Director General of Investigation and Registration (DG) under Section 10(a)(iii) of the Act. Briefly the facts are as under:

THE DG received a complaint from one Shri Ramautar Ganeriwalla stating that the respondent school has been making forcible collection of building funds from students. After making an investigation, the DG has filed an application in this Commission under Section 10(a)(iii) of the Act stating that the respondent had issued a notice dated 7th November, ''94 requesting the parents and the guardians of the students to deposit an amount of Rs. 501/- towards the Building Donation Fund, that the amount was required to be paid by 15th November, 94, that the school''s notice clearly stated that admit cards for the second terminal examination would be given only to those who produced the receipt for Rs. 501/- and that the said notice also requested for at last one advertisement. THE DG has added that the complainant Shri Ganeriwalla deposited the donation amount of Rs. 1,002/- in respect of his two children studying in the school, that the school had demanded one year''s bus fee in advance from the parents and guardians of the students. He has concluded that the Building Donation Fund contribution is in the nature of a ''whip'' as it is not voluntary but is coercive and an imposition on the parents and guardians of the school children. He has charged the respondent of manipulating the conditions of rendering services and of imposing unjustified cost on the parents and guardians of the students thus, attracting the provisions of Section 2(o)(ii) of the Act. On the basis of the said application of the DG, the Commission issued the Notice of Enquiry dated 15th January, 96 already referred to, charging the respondent of having indulged in restrictive trade practices within the meaning of Section 2(o)(ii) of the Act and stating that the said restrictive trade practices are prejudicial to public interest. The respondent was directed by the Notice of Enquiry to enter its defence and appear at the hearings of this Commission.

Despite the NOE being sent by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), the respondent refused to receive the same and was, therefore, set ex parte. The DG filed his evidence in the form of the affidavit of Shri V.P. Singhal, Joint Director (Legal) in his office. We gave a hearing to Mr. C. Shanmugam, ADG for the DG.

AS the respondent failed to put in its appearance and also failed to furnish its reply to the NOE, we have no material other than the exparte evidence and ex-parte arguments of the DG. Not only the evelope of this Commission carrying the Notice of Enquiry was refused by the respondent but also the probe letter sent by the DG as is revealed in the application of the DG. The circular notice issued by the school on 7th November, 1994 to the parents and guardians of the students to the effect that admit cards for the second annual examination would be given only to those who produce the receipt for payment of Rs. 501/- towards the Building Donation Fund is clearly a coercion and an imposition on the parents and guardians. Inasmuch as it is not voluntary because of the inherent threat in the said notice, there is no doubt at all that this is a restrictive trade practice of manipulation of conditions of rendering services and of imposing unjustified costs of the parents and guardians of the students in the school. The said restrictive trade practice falls under Section 2(o)(ii) of the Act, which is clearly prejudicial to public interest.

WE, therefore, direct the respondent school to discontinue forthwith the said restrictive trade practice of making it compulsory for the parents and guardians to contribute to the Building Donation Fund. The respondent shall not repeat the aforesaid restrictive trade practice in future. The respondent school shall file an affidavit in compliance of the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this order. The school refused to receive our NOE and the probe letter of the DG and also failed to furnish information sought by him. The DG is directed to initiate legal action against the respondent school under Section 49(1) of the Act. The respondent shall pay cost of Rs. 500/- to the DG. Enquiry disposed of.