New Delhi, March 5
In an important judgement related to agriculture sector the Supreme Court has held that imposing of certain conditions by the government for the supply of irrigation water to the farmers will not amount to restrictive trade practice.
The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTP) has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint relating to the imposition of conditions by the government on the supply of irrigation water in the absence of the “vital element of competition” even if it was considered to be a “service” provided by the state in the capacity of an undertaking as defined in Section 2(V) of the MRTP Act, the court ruled.
Setting aside an order of the MRTP, holding that government departments which rendered “service” under Section 2 of the MRTP Act were covered by its provisions, a Bench of Ms Justice Ruma Pal and Mr Justice P.V. Reddi said “We are unable to sustain the decision of the commission.”
The judgement came on an appeal by the Uttar Pradesh Government against the commission’s directive ordering an inquiry into a complaint by some farmers, alleging that their crops had been affected due to “manipulated” conditions regarding the supply of irrigation water by the state government.
They said the “Warbandi” irrigation programme introduced by the state government in August, 1995, with respect to certain lands amounted to restrictive trade practice as the state as an “irrigation service provider” could not “manipulate” the scheme.
But the court rejected the farmers’ contention, saying that “unless there is a restrictive trade practice as defined in Section 2(o) of the MRTP Act, the commission would not have the power to entertain any complaint.
