DIRECTOR GENERAL (INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION) vs AHLCON PUBLIC SCHOOL

THE matter has been placed before us for deciding the issue as to the maintainability of the proceeding.

IT is not necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to the present proceeding. IT is not in dispute that the respondent is an educational institution imparting education to students. The matter pertains to the educational activities of the respondent. In its ruling in the case of NITTE Education Trust & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., reported in (1997) 5 CTJ at P. 229, the High Court of Karnataka has held that education and matters pertaining to education would fall outside the purview of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief). In its Full Bench ruling in the case of The Director General, (Investigation and Registration) v. Holy Angels School, reported in (1998) 6 CTJ at P. 129, this Commission has ruled that a ruling of a High Court is binding to this Commission in absence of any ruling either of the Hon''ble Supreme Court or of any other High Court taking a view contrary to that taken by the concerned High Court on the point in question. In that view of the matter, the proceeding in this case would not be maintainable as it pertains to educational activities of the respondent. Learned Counsel Mr. Dua for the DG has submitted that the aforesaid Full Bench ruling of this Commission in the case of Holy Angels School (supra) deserves reconsideration in view of the Division Bench ruling of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Taylor Instrument Co. (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (1998) 232 ITR at P. 771. In the aforesaid Division Bench ruling of the High Court of Delhi it has been held that a decision of a High Court would be binding to the Tribunal within its territorial jurisdiction. According to learned Counsel Mr. Dua for the DG, since the seat of this Commission is in Delhi, the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission would be Delhi and no ruling of any High Court other than the High Court of Delhi would be binding to this Commission.

With respect, we are unable to accept the aforesaid submission of learned Counsel Mr. Dua for the DG. The reason therefor is quite simple. The MRTP Act is applicable throughout this country except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This Commission has been established under the MRTP Act and its jurisdiction also extends through out this country. Simply because its seat is in Delhi is no ground to come to the conclusion that its territorial jurisdiction is only within the territory of Delhi and not outside Delhi. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid Division Bench ruling of the High Court of Delhi has to be distinguished.

BESIDES, the aforesaid ruling of the High Court of Delhi has been given in the context of the exercise of jurisdiction by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal. It cannot be gainsaid that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is established under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in practically every State. It cannot be gainsaid that it has to exercise its jurisdiction within the State in which it has its seat. Under the Constitution of India a High Court has been established practically in every State. In that context, the aforesaid Division Bench ruling of the High Court of Delhi has to be understood. With respect, we are, therefore, of the opinion that the aforesaid Division Bench ruling of the High Court of Delhi is distinguishable on its own facts. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Full Bench decision of this Commission in the case of Holy Angels School (supra) does not deserve any reconsideration on the basis of the aforesaid Division Bench ruling of the High Court of Delhi. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the present proceeding would be governed by the aforesaid ruling of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of NITTE Education Trust (supra) read with the Full Bench ruling of this Commission in the case of Holy Angels School (supra). The proceeding will, therefore, have to be held not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.

IN the result, the complaint fails. It is hereby rejected, however, with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Complaint dismissed.