DIRECTOR GENERAL (INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION) vs CENTRAL CIRCUIT CINE ASSOCIATION

THE present review petition has been filed, on behalf of the respondent, Central Circuit Cine Association, Jaipur, under Section 151, C.P.C. read with Order 47 Rules 1 and 2, seeking review of the Commission''s Order, dated 10.10.2001 passed in R.T.P.E. No. 219/1995.

WE have heard the learned Advocates representing the respondent as well as the Director General (Investigation and Registration). The impugned order was passed after perusing the facts brought on record and hearing both the learned Advocates representing the parties. It is a speaking order. It has been held therein that the impugned trade practice adopted by and indulged in by the respondent attracted the provisions of Section 33(1)(a) of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) and was prejudicial to the public interest. In the review petition, it has been urged that the gateways pleaded by the respondent, under Section 38(1)(b) of the MRTP Act, 1969, in its reply, have not been considered. It is pertinent and proper to recapitulate the facts of the case which, very briefly, are that it has not been denied that the respondent issued the impugned Circular dated 11.3.1994 by virtue of which the applicant/complainant, Anand Theatre, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan was not supplied films and the cinema hall remained closed and as a consequence, the general public was deprived of this source of entertainment. The boycott of the applicant/complainant by the members of the respondent Association, pursuant to the Circular dated 11.3.1994 resulting in non-supply of films for screening, is per se, a restrictive trade practice within the meaning of Section 33(1)(a) of the Act. Whether a trade practice is to be condemned as a restrictive trade practice is to be determined and decided on the touch-stone of prejudice it causes or is likely to cause to the public interest. In this case, it is not disputed or denied that the Anand theatre remained closed due to non-supply of films and the films were not supplied because of the impugned Circular dated 11.3.1994 issued by the respondent and resultant denial of entertainment to the general public is prejudicial to public interest. The burden of proving that the impugned trade practice is not prejudicial to public interest, by virtue of the gateways under Section 38(1), is cast on the respondent. The respondent, in this case, has not been able to demonstrate how specific or substantial benefits or advantages enjoyed by the consumers would be denied to them if the respondent is restrained from adoption of the restrictive trade practice of which it has been held to be guilty. In that view of the matter, the review application is misconceived and is hereby, rejected. There is no order as to costs. Review Application dismissed.