ORDER
R.K. Anand, Member
1. Shri B.K. Gupta has made a complaint stating that he sent an application for registration of his pet (a bitch) along with a demand draft of Rs. 100 to the Kennel Club of India, Chennai. He has further alleged that the club is following monopolistic and restrictive trade practices as it demanded an amount of Rs. 250 as yearly subscription to their magazine, the Indian Kennel Gazette as a condition for registration of his pet.
2. On receipt of the complaint, the Director-General (Investigation and Registration) (the DG) was asked to investigate and submit his Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR). The DG in his PIR has stated that the subscription to the Indian Kennel Gazette was in the nature of a tie up with the registration of the pet and constituted a restrictive trade practice within the meaning of Section 33(1)(b) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (“the Act” for brief).
3. On the basis of the PIR a notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent calling upon it to show cause why an enquiry under Section 37 read with Section 10 of the Act, should not be instituted against it. The respondent was also directed to file a reply to the PIR.
4. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent the allegations of restrictive trade practices were denied and it was clarified that it was providing useful service to the dog owners by apprising them of the rules and regulations, notifications and other relevant information regarding registration of dogs, dog show etc. and also disseminating literature regarding scientific breeding of dogs, dog care, natural history and allied subjects through the Gazette which was brought out every month and in its every issue one breed of dog was discussed. It was also stated that the respondent did not have any monopoly in this field and there were many other clubs in the country and these too, were following similar practices. It was further added that the respondent was a non-profit society registered under the Societies Registration Act and had various high dignitaries and respectable persons as its patrons.
5. We have heard the Deputy Director-General on behalf of the DG and the advocate for the respondent and perused the copies of the Indian Kennel Gazette for the months of April and May, 1998, produced before us. After considering the oral submissions of the advocate for the respondent and after perusing the Gazette we are of the view that no case of restrictive trade practice against the respondent has been made out and in fact, the respondent is providing a useful service to the dog lovers and dog owners and the monthly publication of this Gazette contains useful information and its subscribers would be benefited by reading it. In the result, we conclude that no proceedings under Section 37 read with Section 10 of the Act, be instituted against the respondent and direct that the show-cause notice be discharged.
6. Pronounced in open court on August 25, 1998.