[RAJYA SABHA] Restrict in \ 624 Practices BUI, 1967 SHRI

623 Monopolies and [RAJYA SABHA] Restrict in \ 624 Practices BUI, 1967

SHRI JAISUKHLAL HATHI : We banks have oeen-nationalised. According to know it. me all foreign banks also should be included and with this amendment incorporated a new SHRI DWIJENDRALAL SEN GUPTA : Bill should be placed before the House. Why interrupt me and say this ? When you say something we also know what you say. THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI D. Still we hear you. And if we say something THENGAR1) : Have vou anything to you should have the patience to hear it say? completely, and you should have the patience to hear me now. SHRI JAISUKHLAL HATHI : I have nothing to add. SHRI JAISUKHLAL HATHI : Mr. Sen Gupta, why get excited ? There Avas no occasion for you to get excited. 1 only said, "We know these facts." And the suggestion was made by Mr. Mulka Govinda Reddy and others that once you have the legislation the very cause of action and the challenge to the Ordinance will not be there. Wc understand that. There is no reason to get excited. SHRI JAISUKHLAL HATHI : Yes, I will convey to the Prime Minister. SHRI DWIJENDRALAL SEN GUPTA : Because of your impatience and interruption I am mde. THE MONOPOLIES AND RESTRIC- SHRI M. PURKAYASTHA (Assam) : TIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL, Yes, that is your monopoly. 1967—contd. SHRI P. C. M1TRA (Bihar) : Sir, this Bill SHRI DWIJENDRALAL SEN GUPUTA : was introduced as early as in 1967 and we are That is your monopoly on that side. now in July, 1969, and during this period the situation has considerably changed, and I Now, Mr. Vice-Chairman, from the point of think that, if the hon. Minister had redrafted view of expediency it is necessary that this Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Prac- wholehearted support should be had from tices Bill taking the changed situation in Parliament as soon as possible. The second between into consideration and placed it point that I should like to make is that it is also before the Joint Committee, then the Select the convention that at the earliest opportunity Committee would also have had the an Ordinance which is promulgated when the opportunity to consider the changed situation, House is not in session should be placed and make more improvements than they have before the House. On Saturday this was passed made in the Bill as referred to them in the and I expected that the Bill replacing the original form. In my opinion this Bill does not Ordinance would come up on Monday. This go far enough, and even if we adopt it in this has been the convention. When there is an ur- form as presented by the Select Committee, gency and the House is not in session and an this Bill will not be able to restrict the Ordinance is passed, then at the earliest monopolies unless we take some other opportunity a Bill is placed before the House measures to rectify the loopholes that are in to replace the Ordinance. But here it has not the system in the Government now. The been the case and there is no reason why it whole difficulty is this. When the Hazari should have been so. The third thing why I report came before us, from the report it was support the contention that immediately the clear that the Birla house was favoured in Bill should have been brought forward is this, securing a lot of licences and that, though they and I repeat what all I said yesterday and the day before yesterday; and it is that there is got them, they did not utilise many of the some lacuna in the Ordinance, namely, that licences but that they took those so that other only 14 persons might not get the chance of establishing those industries. And in spite of that report we received. Government did not take 625 Monopolies and [23 JULY 1969] Restrictive Trade 626 Practices Bill, 1967 the necessary 1 )IIow-up action regarding i be there—"or any substantial part there of". the licensing ysiem that has been in If it is kept, then there will be many kinds of vogue from 1 )56 onwards. Now, in interpretations in this regard. Besides for the Industrial Licensing Policy there everything we want Judges. Here also we was a clear in tmction that the Licens have said that the Monopoly Commission ing Policy she jkl not be put to use should be presided over by a High Court in such a ma iner that there may be Judge or a person who is qualified to be a concentration of capital. Now the High Court Judge or Supreme Court Judge. Hazari report indicated that there was Here I would like to draw the attention of the concentration if capital at least in one House to the note submitted by the Prime group of industries. And that is the Minister at the Bangalore session. She has Birla group f industries. And it said in that note that we have not only to clearly showed that there was something nationalise banks, but we have also to see wrong in the :ommittee that was en that the personnel who are entrusted with the trusted with i suing industrial licences. work accept and believe in this policy of But Governmt it, instead of taking im democratic socialism. Here I am afraid we mediate action to rectify the matter, have got some allergy. We seem to think that again institute I another committee, In except the High Court Judges nobody else dustrial Licen ;es Inquiry Committee. can be impartial. I think this restriction And after this report it is evident that, should not be there. Why should we think with the presi nt set-up whatever law that only High Court Judges will be impartial you pass i r whatever resolution ? When we go and appoint a retired High you adopt, unless you basically Court Judge what we find is that he thinks change the s stem of administration, that this is the last chance tor him after you cannot get 'the results you retirement to accumulate as much money as he can. Now we have seen the retired intended to get by this legislation District Judges are generally entrusted with Now, in regird to this very Mono the work of making settlements in land polies and Ri strictive Trade Practices acquisition cases and we found that fantastic Bill also, on t Ertein provisions of it I rates were given for land when the party have got to c imment. Take Clause concerned was a solvent party but when poor 2—Definitions A "dominant under people went up ( before them thev did not taking" means an undertaking which get that rate I for the same type ot land. I can produces, supplies, distributes or other show many instances when compensation was wise control- not less than one- given for the land acquired for the Heavy third of th( total goods of any Engineering Corporation Ranchi where for description th. t are produced, supplied the same type of land different rates were or distributed in India or any substan given. So I think this restriction should not tial part thereof, or ...... This defini be here in this Bill. If Government means tion in sub-cl use (d) (i) indicates that business Government should find out per- even if it is j 1st a little less than one- sons who have got belief in socialism, whose third, say, 30 per cent., then even we record is clean, and such people can be do not take i lto account that it is a entrusted with the chairmanship which "dominant un lertaking". I think the should not be restricted to only High Court limit should 1 ; much less than one- Judges or Supreme Court Judges or retired third; it shoul 1 not be more than 15 Judges. per cent; If it is more than 15 per cent., it shouf be taken as a dominant SHRI SUNDAR SINGH BHAN-DARI undertaking. Therefore this aspect (Rajasthan) : How will both the things should be looked into. Again, it is combine ? mentioned in sub-clauses (d) (i) and (d) (ii)—"in I n d i a or any substantial SHRI P. C. MITRA : You think you part thereof." It is not mentioned what cannot be clean but I think can be clean and that "substant al part" is. As such, how there cannot be any person who can can a court i iterpret this "substantial challenge my bona fides. We have got that part thereof" ' Whether they wiM inter peculiar notion that only High Court Judges pret it as 50 per cent., or 51 per cent, can be honest and or 30 per cen' , or 35 per cent., or more or less, canno be said. It is not defin ed here and therefore it is not very clear—"in India or any substantial part thereof." I rhink "or any substantial part thereof" :ould be easily deleted; it is redundant in this Bill. It should not 627 Monopolies and [RAJYA SABHA] Restrictive Trade 628 Practices Bill, 1967

[Shri P. C. Mitra] coal for which the steel plants are shouting clean and nobody else. Now big lawyers and and the Government is thinking of importing advocates become High Court Judges. After coking coal. But 85 per cent of our coking they have become Judges you think they are coal is being monopolised by five or six very clean but before these people become concerns and most of them have heavy Judges could they not be clean ? You can put investment in foreign capital like Andrew such people there. Yule, Mcneil Barry, Bird & Co., Jardine Henderson, Martin Burn and so on. And now Further after the nationalisation of banks we find certain big Indian companies also many of the provisions in this Bill will have entered like the Keoras, Chanchanis and become redundant and will never be used, others and together they control nearly 75 per particularly those provisions relating to banks. cent of the total production, employment and despatch. And what is the result that we find ? After the nationalisation of banks there is no The result is that the small and the medium question of monopoly in banking and coal mines are being shut out in unfair therefore in my opinion the Government competition. We see' that the coal belonging should withdraw this Bill, modify it and then to a small owner who cannot invest much is place it before the House. put as grade 3 (b) but as soon as a big monopolist takes it over that very same coal SHRI KALYAN ROY (West Bengal) : Mr. which was considered very low grade now Vice-Chairman, I stand to support the Bill becomes the best coal. What does that mean ? which is presented before the House. I do That means the monopolists have such vicious regret that the Government has taken such a control over the entire State apparatus, over long time to bring this Bill when the whole the Coal Board, over the industrial machinery, country, particularly the workers, the middle that they can do whatever they like and the class, the peasants and intellectuals and those result is in the coal mines accidents are who have to work and who do not get fat increasing sharply in relation to the output. In dividends out of their investments have been the coal mine areas it is becoming unsafe for shouting for this Bill. Ultimately the Bill has people to live because every day there are ac- come but even then it is not perfect because cidents and the villagers are fleeing in panic. still today, we find, as we have found in the And besides the entire mine is wasted because last 20 years under the rule of the Congress these monopolists in search of quick profits, Party, the monopolists are not only quick gains, take out the easy coal leaving the flourishing, expanding and getting rest to be destroyed and thus plundering the strengthened but they are actually corrupting whole country. So there is a case today for the whole moral fabric of the nation. It is nationalisation of coal mines as there was a natural that we are against the concentration case for bank nationalisation.. The most of wealth in a few hands because we want to important thing to be done in the country have a better nation where the people of our today is to nationalise the coal mines because if country will feel they own the country, that these coal mines are left in the hands of the they have something to contribute for the private sector, in the hands of the capitalists development ol the country and not merely to for fifty years the country will have to import take money and spend like the Tatas, the coal from outside. This is what the capitalists Birlas, the Mafatlals and the Jains in London, are doing. The same thing you find in the case in Paris or in Washington D. C. What is hap- of iron ore, in the case of manganese, where pening in the country ? Why is the the big business like the Birlas, the Tatas, Government taking such a long time to have a control the whole thing. And the same is the perfect Bill ? What is happening in the place case with chemicals too, same thing in jute. So where I come from, in the coal mining areas ? wherever you look, today it is the monopolists You see in the Press that accidents take place who are flourishing and flourishing. Shall wc every day and landless labourers from Bihar, wait till they capture all the State ap-partus U. P. and Bengal are killed in the mines evrey which they are trying to do? Today the day. There are 730 coal mines in India and not monopolists are not satisfied with what they all the mines produce the same grade of coal. have. The Tatas, the We know we are very short of coking 629 M« wpotifi and [23 JULY 1969] Ruuictiv, Trade 639 Practices Bill, 1967

Uirlas, are opt nly saying that they are not prosper because the country suffers. Look at satisfied v> ith the way the things are the other side of the Monopolies Bill. Do they proceeding They want total power over the know that the monopolists infiltrate into the entire State apparatus in order to have a share universities ? You see every day in the papers in the international capit. 1 in collaboration advertisements by the Jains, the Tatas and the with the Americans and the West Germans. Birlas asking for the best students of the We think that the Bill can and should be universities to come and seek scholarships so improved. Otherwise, as we are talking about that they can send them abroad and they can ecession, as we are talking about un come back and slave for them. They are mployment, as we are talking about ligh corrupting the whole intellectual field in the prices, as we are talking about he large-scale country. They are corrupting the universities, unemployment of cngirxrs, things will further colleges and schools. The result is that today deteriorate. I can only give two or "three we find corruption at every level. It is no use instance; from the papers which are being run accusing a Chapprasi or a poor peon or an >y the monopolists. What are the things engine driver for an accident. The whole base happening in India today ? Take t e textile is under monopolistic control. What is mills. What is happening to the workers happening to the coal-mines ? The coal-mine today? In the Economic Times of June 27, owners are in league with these big fellows in 1969 we find this s >rry state of affairs in the the Railway Board and buy coal from them. textile mil i. We notice complete concentration The result is that they give bad coal, they mix >f power in the textile mills. They are not only up the coal, whereas the Railways place orders the big owners, but w; know that they also for grade I coal. I know of many cases. supply finance to the political parties in this Because of bad coal the trains run late, the country Look at the conditions of the workers train services have become poor and accidents ? This is what the Economic Times "rote on have increased. In the field of cultural acti- June 27 :— vities the monopolists push up the worst kind of literature in the bazaar. They make money. "The situ tion has been so desperate that They can spend money because they are getting in some cases, the jobless had to send even money through the bureaucrats, through diffe- old, infirm, invalid people and ;bildren to rent channels, through different corridors. work on the Ambar Cha: kha. At Petlad, This is the condition today. On the other side, where the textile r ills closed and plunged the workers get dismissed for asking the the town in untold miseries, this reporter implementation of the recommendations of the saw a gnarled, stooping old man spinnin.; Coal Wage Board. Even the Government has at the Ambar centre. Mitha Bhai was 82 miserably failed to implement the unanimous and had to re-harness h mself in the recommendations of the Coal Wage Board, twilight years of his ife as his son lost his though these monopolists got Rs. 3/- per tonne job when his m 11 closed. Mitha cannot see in 1967. Yet, some of the workers who have proper!} His grand-daughter sat near him put in twenty years or thirty years of service to watch out for broken threads as Mitha's are being dismissed on medical grounds and hands, motivated more by ITH ntal than by none of them are getting even one paisa. The physical strength, tuned the wheel. For the mine workers are being slaughtered, while the past six mon hs, the old man has been Government and the Railway Board are working fou • hours a day." giving them a further increase in the price of coal. It is pathetic, it is a tragedy that our What is the condition of the Mafat-lals, the Labour Ministry and the Railway Ministry or Birlas and the Jalans ? Never before were tl e the Mines Ministry have miserably failed air-conditioned hotels so full. Neve: before the either to protect the lives of the miners employers and the monopolists have spent so underground or to protect the interests of the much money tor a night in the Ashoka Hotel consumers who buy coal and in between we and yet we know that some people are afr id find the huge buildings of the Birlas, the to come out and support this Bill because Tatas, the Andrew Yules and the Birds who, these political parties think that their base will on the one hand, have pocketed be gone and the c ountry will prosper. They 631 Monopolies i ml [RAJYA SABHA] Restrictive Trade 632 Practices Bill, 1967

[Shri Kalyan Roy] the increased coal clear manifestation of the aspirations of the price and on the other, slaughter the mine common man and the poor man of this workers down. We Would like to know country, when this Bill was before the loint from the Government how long this will Select Committee, various types of persons continue. The Government is well aware of came as witnesses and I can divide them into it. In spite of the coal price increase, the three categories, viz., the big business class, coal-miners have not got anything of what the experts and the common man. While inter- was unanimously recommended by the viewing them, the impression that we got from Coal Wage Board. Why have the the big business was that they were entirely Government failed to issue an Ordinance to and absolutely against any such Bill, which will place a curb on the concentration of implement the recommendations of the power which they have. But the experts Wage Board in relation to the iron ore simultaneously were of the view that the mines, in relation to the manganese mines, socio-economic conditions and the monetary in relation to the coal-mmes and in relation system in the country are such that unless a to the mica mines ? What is preventing prompt and effective measure was taken to them from doing it ? They know that the curb monopolies, it would be very unfortunate Congress party'depends upon the mono- for the common man living in this country. polists for their survival. Sir, the main reason that was given by the big business against such a Bill which is pending SHRI G. H. VALIMOHMED before us for discussion was that it would kill MOMIN (Gujarat) : No, no. the managerial skill, that it would kill :itude of the businessman in the field you placed SHRI KALYAN ROY : Because of the curbs on him to grow and expand as he liked. I pressure of the workingclass, of the may place before this House some extracts workers and the landless peasants, they with regard to the _point raised by the big bring forward this sort of Bill, which we businessmen. It is contained in the report of welcome, but some other fellows, some the Monopolies Enquiry Commission and it is other parties also financed by the a fitting reply to the apprehension raised by monopolists come out against it. It is a the big business that it will kill the managerial good thing. We support it, but do not stop skill. I quote : with this. See the conditions of the workers. See the conditions of the jute "It is well to remember at the same time workers in Calcutta, in Barrack-pore, who that the small business concerns are a good are going on an indefinite strike from the training ground for business talent and first week of August. The entire jute mills managerial skill of which we have not a are in the hands of ten or eleven concerns . surfeit in the country. The elimination of . . small men in industries in so far as it dries up the source of managerial and SHRI G. H. VALIMOHMED entrepreneurial ability is therefore bad for MOMIN : The strike is organised by industry as a whole. Not important is the whom ? fact that elimination of small men in SHRI KALYAN ROY : It is not a business increases the imbalance in the question of vote alone. The question is distribution of national wealth and income. whether the country will survive or the Even where such elimination by big Birlas will survive, whether the workers business results in an increase in the onal will survive or the employers will drink wealth and income, the income of a few champagne in Paris. This is the question already wealthy men increases at a faster which we have to face and 5 have to face. rate than that of the many poor." So, please take this into consideration. Improve on it and do not halt at this, Sir, this is sufficient answer to the question because we have to see that the workers get which the big business posed of managerial job and employment. Otherwise, the skill in the case the Bill is passed. monopolists will eat you up and and the whole democracy will be in danger. SHRI GULAM NABI UNTOO (Jammu and Kashmir) : Mr. Vice- Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to support this Bill, which is a 633 Monopt lies and [23 JULY 1969] Restrctire Trade 634 Practices Bill, 1967

At the same t me the common man put so many years we have been discussing in the forth his cas: and the report is so evidently in party, in the House, that this country, this his avour. I will quote some extracts fr im the nation, is dedicated to a socialist pattern of report which give an insight Ito what happens society. Thank you. in this monopolistic system that is working in this country : THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI D. "One social consequence of THENGARI) : Mr. Niren Ghosh. Please be theconcentration >f wealth and income very brief. in a very sm; ll percentage of thepopulation wh ch is the inevitable SHRI NIREN GHOSH (West Bengal) : Do effect of cone mtration of economicpower in you want to finish this Bill today? the control of industriesdeserves speci 1 mention. Part ofthis wealth at d income THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI D. has, it is. been pi: hack into THENGARI) : Yes. industry,but the remai ider has gone to the lion of a new caste in thisalready SHRI NIREN GHOSH : Mr. Vice- cast .--ridden country—therich. Many Chairman, I have stood up to make certain of them flaunttheir superior ty in riches remarks which I think I should do in in palatialbuildings, lim .usines and a retinue connection with such a Bill when it comes ofservants and nake no secret of thethat the) before the House. This Bill seeks to restrict think themselves to beand above the rest of monopoly or curb monopoly and put a stop to their feJH)w-ci umrymen. restrictive trade practices and all that. If we can achieve that purpose, certainly it is As we haw mentioned above the co- welcome and any attempt in this direction is existence i f a small number of very rich p welcome, and in that sense I we'eome the Bill. rsons or families side by side wi h abysmal But we should also have a look at our own poverty of the magnitu le engenders a class experience in this country and abroad. When tng agaii st big business which is not to the Imperial Bank was nationalised, it was Be lightly dismissed." expected that credits should be availa-bl: no; to make for further growth of monopolies but to check them, that the small entrepreneurs, In view of these remarks of the Inquiry small, medium and others would get the Commi' ;ion it was essential for the benefit and the ordinary people would get the Governmen to pilot such a Bill, and we benefit. Unfortunately things have not taken should wholeheartedly support this Bill so that turn. Most of the credit, the lion's share of that we enable the Government to implement the credit, the cream of it, has gone to the the curbs on the monopolies. assistance of the monopolies even for the purposes of speculation, forward trading and In i" if is quite bearing on so on. Our experience in regard to the Life the poini and r ;levant on this occasion Insurance Corporation is also the same. All to pay my tribu es to the Prime Minister the new ventures that have been floated by the and the Go^ for nationalising 1 big business have been subscribed to by the the ban .- and expect that very soon Bill to L.I.C., underwritten by the L.I.C., and funds natii nalise the banks will be brought before have been diverted for that purpose. Now, the the House. While considering this BiK in the report of the Licensing Committee has just Committee this posed from every side that been placed before the House, on the Table of unless there is a cont ol over the banks, un- the House. less the State o"ns the banks, unless the banks are nationalised, this Bill, if it is be a body without a soul, and when we are having a 3 P.M. Bill for localisation of the banks, I expect that the eco lomic policy of SHRI DAHYABHAI V. PATEL this measure will w >rk on the very desired (Gujarat) : Not available. and carved-out path that for the last SHRI NIREN GHOSH : Not yet available. 635 Monopolies and fRAJYA SABHA] Rtttrittiv* Trade 636 Prattices Bill, 1967

SHRI DAHYABHAI V. PATEL: Only the SHRI NIREN GHOSH: He has spoken on Congress Members who shout •can get it. The the Bill—I was not here, but I have heard Minister gives them because they got up and about it from others— saying, what is the use shout. But we do not. of having a Bill like this ? If you have capital, the monopoly will grow and it will continue to SHRI M. N. KAUL (Nominated) : grow ; nothing can check it. And since you are Discrimination. not going to end tho social system, why try to curb it or have some pin-pricks on it or have some digs at it ? Allow it to flourish SHRI NIREN GHOSH : Mr. Dahya-bhai unhindered, unimpeded. No raafcriettooa Patel, after all, the entire StaU should be placed. :structurc goes in your favour, though you speak against it; the whole of tho State (Time bell rings) structure seems to favour you. "That is the summary of it THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI D. THENGARI) : Kindly wind up. What to do? The time is limited. SHRI DAHYABHAI V. PATEL: You are sadly mistaken. SHRI NIREN GHOSH: You are not liking what I am saying ? SHRI NIREN GHOSH: It is a devastating critique. THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI D. THENGARI) : Your time is over. SHRI DAHYABHAI V. PATEL : I SHRI M. N. KAUL: He baa no have not seen it. views as Chairman. SHRI NIREN GHOSH : That is the process SHRI NIREN GHOSH : Now, what I was that has been going on either in the field of going to say was, all these Directive Principles licensing or of credits by the State Bank of of the Constitution, they were never meant to India, the LIC or any other institution. It is be implemented ; they were meant to bluff; in appalling. So, in all respects, wherever we can order that you can say that they have been have a deep look into it, whatever measures enshrined in the Constitution. the Government have taken— whatever their purpose—in order to curb or restrict the Now, in order to end the monopoly, in monoply, the persons who implement them, order to curb the monopoly, what is to be done the State which implements them, has seen to is to end the monopoly. Otherwise, there is no it that nothing of that kind takes place, that the other method known in this world by which contrary process takes place and that it is the the monopoly has been curbed. Antitrust Laws monopolies who are benefited. Others have have been in operation in that paradise of the gone down in the fight; the wealth has been monopolists, the USA, for the last half a concentrated, and the process has been going century, I suppose, but despite those Anti-trust on. I say, so long as this system continues, it Laws, the biggest monopolies have come into will go on. Mr. Dahyabhai Patel, I do not think existence precisely there. What are the Birlas you need worry. Even the public sector today ? That is how the monopolists are undertakings have been a God-send to them. flourishing. The USA tried that they should be Through the contractor process, through broken up. In Japan they tried about the imports, through feeding the consumer Mitsubishi and other concerns but they have industry, through raw materials providing the come up. You have done away with the infra-structure, in all these matters they have managing agency system. It is good that you helped the monopolists so far. Still, we are-in have done away with it. But have the favour of this Bill because some people say, managing agencies lost control over their for example, my friends is not here—Mr. houses? Have the Birla Brothers, the B.K.P. Sinha... managing agents, lost control ? Have they lost conrol over their empire ? No. They have not. SHRI M. N. KAUL : We will send for They still continue to own those him. 637 Me opolies and [23 JULY 1969] Rtstrittivt Trade 638 Practices Bill, 1967 concerns. Foi example, their General Manager the common people are talking about it. But was eliing me that the Birla Brothers Ifcive that is not the point here. They have gone seased to be the managing agents of he there. They will strike us unless something Texmaco. It is a sophisticated concern. But it very fundamental is done. is the Birlas who owi it and control it. For the settlement of a strike, I had to talk to them ney Seventy-five houses own concerns big or wanted me to talk to Mr. Birla. I"hat is the ... small or medium. You do not judge monopolies by looking at the concerns. You THE VICE- :HAIRMAN (SHRI D. judge monopolies by looking at each house, THENGARI) Kindly wind up. All must get which family controls it. The Birla House may justio . control a factory of one hundred people. There are factories where they employ 100 people. SHRI NIR -N GHOSH : By not There are factories where they employ 10,000 interrupting me, you should help me to or 14,000 people. But these 100-people conclude. employing factories will also fall into the monopoly group. If you want to curb the I am putting it to Mr. Fakhruddin Ali monopoly you must take all the concerns of Ahmad anc through him also to the Prime the Birlas. If you want to end the monopoly, Minister that the time has now come. So far is you must take all the concerns under the Tatas this Bill goes, we will lend our sup x>rt or the Mafatlals or the Martin Burns, all these because whatever restrictions or lifhculties can 75 houses. Unless you do that, you cannot end be put in the way of the monopolists, it is the monopoly, you can never curb it. You can good. Let us try to < o so. But at the same put certain difficulties on their path. That is ;time I am quit i clear in my mind that the Bill all. This is a fundamental thing. We are will n >t curb the monopoly. They will find coming up against that. Some radical out other devious ways to bypass this. They measures should be taken. They have touched will utilise the State machiner in their favour. some 14 banks owned by some six or ten They have been doin » so. Despite the bank houses mainly, not foreign banks, they are nationalisation neasure even, almost 60 to 70 now furious and they will try to strike back. per < ent of the credit even in the future : They want unhindered freedom to exploit. erhaps will be handled and utilised by the And, as I said, many of the civil servants are monopolists. That is my fear and helping them ; personnel of the judiciary, the apprehension. It has been so in our country, it bureaucracy, it is through them that you has been so in any other c iuntry where operate this thing. They are the people who socialism has not been e; ablished. help the monopolists directly. Now Indiraji has made a departure. Only future events will The urgency of the point that I am making determine where she stands, whether she has is this. There is a similar measure like tl e broken completely with the monopolists and bank nationalisation measure. It is a vital will fight the monopolists. If she measure. It has touched on ; sensitive cord, compromises, then she will be just a puppet in spot because four th >usand crores are invol- the hands of the Syndicate, a puppet in the ved. Some rest ictions are there. How can they hands of the monopolists. If she wants to retain manip date by under invoicing and over-invoi her position she must fight to the bitter end :ing ? Some black-money perhap will be and unravel the scandal... there. It becomes a bit t ifficult to operate that black money aid indulge in speculation. So, THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI D. they are furious. There is no doubt about it. THENGARI) : Please wind up. They have gone to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has cone to their aid, very SHRI NIREN GHOSH : ... It is only a half unfortunately ; 1 would say deliberately. This way measure. It will only help the has been i ur experience in our State also that monopolists. It will give them time and they he judiciary is coming deliberately to tie aid of will further scandalise in collusion with the vested interests. That is a feature in our bureaucracy. I extended my support State. It has be m the experience. All immediately to this measure. But I feel it my duty to place it before the country and before this august 639 Monopolies mid [RAJYA SABHA1 Restrictive Trade 640 Practices Bill, 1967

[Shri Niren Ghosh] SHRI NIREN GHOSH : Only such a machinery can strike terror into the hearts of House that the only way to end and to curh the monopolists, p It is un-forunate that the monopoly is to take over completely all Government has not vet conceived of such a monopolistic concerns, foreign and India, and measure. Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed should free our Indian economy from their clutches. have thought over the Bill and set up such a Let it be Indian economy. Let it be national Commission functioning permanently which economy. Now it is not national economy. It would do good to the country. Only then is a dependent economy. It is an economy monopolies will be curbed to some extent. which goes against the Indian people, With these words I wind up. operated by the big foreigners and their Indian copartners. This state of things has brought SHRI G. H. VALIMOHMED our country to the brink of ruin. {Time bell MOM1N : Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, if an rings) It is an anti-national thing, anti-Indian individual can suffer from some ailment so thing. If you want to unravel the scandal you can our economy suffer from the ailment of must fight it to the bitter end. There should be concentration of wealth. I heard my pre- no question of any half-way approach. Do not decessor suggesting the remedy. His remedy do that. It would : you nowhere. So I take this is, "Kill the patient and there will be no opportunity to caution the Prime Minister, to sickness". He wants to kill the human being warn the Government, that if they mean iness so that there is no less in this world. That is they have to come forward I see to it that not our approach. bureaucrats and civil ants are not put at the Mr. Vice-Chairman, whenever a Bill of this helm of us. A device must be sought so that nature is brought forward, even those writing people get direct control, direct supervision dissenting notes have said that such a thing is over such measures. there. But they : advised not to go very fast, this that and the other. {Time bell rings) Sir, the Bill has been assailed by the other Finally, if we want to check monopoly, or section saying that it does not go far enough to put difficulty in their way, I would suggest and, therefore, though they have welcomed it the setting up of a Monopolies Commission, a they feel that it does not evoke enthusiasm. permanent commission functioning so that the But we have our own approach and it is this, public can go to them. There need not be an that in the name of industrial growth we did order always from the Government for a help monoply. But our political system was so Vivian Bose Commission. Let us have a stable that they could have growth. They did permanent Commission operating so that get money from the public and the States to whenever such a thing comes up, the help a number of industries and their initiative Commission is seized of it and they unravel did pay dividend. But the whole difficulty was the scandal, put it before Parliament and the that the dividend went into their pockets, not entire country. You should add such a to the labourers as it should have gone. There machinery, a permanently functioning enquiry was no equitable distribution of it, it did not Commission to which the public should have go to the consumer who was at the mercy of the right to approach against monopolies, a the monopolist. Therefore, in the ent context permanent Vivian Bose Commission type of the Government which represents the people thing. Then and has the avowed object of implementing and again they will be held up and their socialism should not approach this problem entire scandal would be put before the bar of a half-hearted manner. There is a Parliament and their goodwill will suffer. complaint made on both sides that the Their entire scandal will be probed. Government does not mean business. Mr. Vice-Chairman, may I tell them that the (Time bell rings) Government has not brought this legislation in a huff. It has struck the monopolists in a THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI D. democratic way. THENGARI) : Please wind up. Others have also to speak. 641 Monopo les and [23 JULY 1969] Restrictive Trnd, 642 Practices Bill, 1967

This House suggested a sort of Joint Select Committee with 15 Members from this House. The Lok Sabha also concurred with it, giving its own Members. The Coi imittee had twenty meetings in which the pros and cons of everything were i iscussed. All parties were represented 3n that Committee and after a big I tbour they came to the conclusion th. t there should be on the Statute Book a Bill to curb the monopolistic tend' ncies and restrictive trade practices.

The poet says that the world says even God Sir. I can neve understand the attitude of the cannot do anything. But here is our Prime Socia Est and Communist friends. First Minister, Shrimati Indira Gandhi, who has th Sy will ask you to Cr and nc sooner taken this bold step. It is up to us now, the Government agrees to tale over than they forgetting other things, to see that this Bill and will '"What abo' t the bureaucrats ?" G xl other such Bills are passed. We do not do it in will not descend from the Heavens, a spirit of vengeance. Mr. Vice-Chairman. Sir, Lord Indira will not come m the Heavens I will end with one couplet more : to correct the human beings here. It is we who have to do it. Criticism is made in season and out of season tha Government is out to protect the private sector, that there is burea'ucrattsatioa and dismal failure the SHRI BANKA BEHARY DAS socialist pc icies and red-tapism. that is there. (Orissa) : Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, in 1967 The law is flexible. 11 i man conc< when I raised this debate on the Monopolies Urates wealth and Ids a mansion, he will Inquiry Commission Report, the Government call it his guest house and i i the name of a promised at that time that they would come big company he will enjoy all entertain- forward with a Bill. Though I broadly support ment- there. Nov a Government wedded to this Joint Select Committee Report, am translate tr.» good sentiments of people, in the constrained to say again, as I said at that time, nterest of the people, should come forw ird that unless there is a structural change in the and plug the loophole. The Gi vernment society, it will be impossible even for Govern- should not bring forward leg slation in a ment with good intentions to stop the rise of halfhearted manner (ecause the public monopoly in the economy. Is it not a fact that confused and the rightists pull it in one in most of the Western countries, the so-called direction a id the leftists pull it in the other capitalist countries, the monopolists are grow- di ection. Now the Government after ing in spite of all sorts of anti-monopoly law ? Weighing the situation in order to tackle Even in the U.S.A. where the law is much the evil in time, long deliberations and more progressive than the law in the after lining all man rer of witnesses, has e to Scandinavian countries or the U.K. or in some conclusion as to hoV r the present Japan or the one we discussing now, we find system. After all. what is it ? It is that that monopolists are growing, and not only wherever tendencies ai i seen, the Govern- growing but, if I may say so, "Apolloing" in ment will appoint i commission, it will go the American economy. into it, there will be a director of vigilance and so o i and so forth. Who can deny that the At the outset, I want to say that this Bill monopolistic tendencies have resulted in the does not even satisfy the conditions set out in concentration of wealth ? We kn >w that the Directive Principles of the Constitution. wealth , is there, but if the ostentations of The Indian Constitution envisages in the it are there, it is hurtin; the poor people Directive Principles that there should not be more. As a poet says : any concentration of wealth. Is this Bill going to ston that concentration of wealth ? This Bill to a certain extent will try 643 Monepolits and [RAJYA SABHA] Rtttrictivc Trait 644 Practices Bill, 1967

[Shri Banka Bchary Das] I do not want to quote the Monopolies Inquiry Commission Report ; it has become to mitigate the harmful effects of monopolies very out-dated. I want to impress on you how in the economy, but it will allow monopolies in spite of the Industrial Licensing Policy of to grow. That is why from the outset I want to this Government to help medium and small- impress upon you and on this House that un- scale industries, the big industries have less there is a structural change both in the benefited. I want to refer you to a report of the agricultural and Industrial sector, you cannot survey by the Department of Company Affairs completely stop this rise of monopoly in the which was done by Mr. B. Dutta only one year Indian economy. I am not going to quote any ago. He says in his report that Tata, the fore- radical economist, but I would like to refer to most businessman in this country, in 1963-64 the observations of Gunnar Myrdal. a Swedish controlled 53 companies with a paid-up capital economist of international fame, who was of Rs. 102 crores. After three years, he had a sometimes invited by the Government of India paid-up capital of Rs. 127 crores, though the in the Planning Commission to have a look at same number of companies remained, in spite the Indian economy. In his recent famous book of the fact that some industries went out of "Asian Drama", he has depicted the sorry and production and there was a certain amount of pitiable economic conditions of this country in merger. In the case of Birla, in 1963-64, he the chapter about India. He has advocated controlled 151 companies with a paid-up there that unless there is a structural change in capital of Rs. 76 crores. Within three years he the economy of India, whatever may be the had 159 companies with a paid-up capital of money you pump in either from external Rs. 105 crores. Tell me, Mr. Vice-Chairman sources or from internal sources, the economy how in spite of the various provisions and in is not going to grow at a rapid pace. So, this spite of the Industrial Licensing Policy these measure to a certain extent may mitigate the top men are still growing in this country ? evil effects of monopoly, but it is not going to Here I would like to refer to the observations change the structure. Can we change the of the Industrial Licensing Policy Enquiry ordinary economic law whereby the large-scale Committee which has said that even the public industries have an advantage over the small sector financial corporations have backed and medium scale industries ? So long as we always these people and never the small and require so many things to grow and so many medium-scale industries. The Committee has products to be manufactured in the country, pointed out that "as compared to 1956, when these big people will come in because not only life insurance was nationalised, the investment have they the backing of the bankers, but they section of the L.I.C. to-day shows a much have also the backing of the foreign larger increase in the scrips issued by the collaborators. The foreign collaborators will Birlas and a few other concerns such as not be attracted towards the small and medium Bangur and Mafatlal as compared to Tatas and scale industries. They will always be attracted Martin Burns who only maintained the towards Tatas and Birlas who have a certain proportion that they had in 1956." The report advantage in the economy. That will always has also clearly indicated that the big people give a fillip to large-scale industries, which have throughout been benefited by the Indus- will ultimately result in the growth of trial Licensing Policy of the Government and monopolies in the country. Even in the also by the public sector financial institutions. agricultural sector you will find that out of the Why has it occurred ?—we should ask 10 top wealth-tax assessees 9 are not indus- ourselves. So unless there is a basic trialists but are feudal lords who pay much transformation in the economy, you can never more than Rs. 1 crore every year. I am not avoid the growth of these big industries which going into that aspect because it is less have always an initial advantage in attracting relevant. I just wanted to indicate to you that not only capital but also technical know-how in the structure of agricultural sector also from outside. unless there is a rapid transformation your desired goal can never be achieved. SHRI M. N. KAUL : What is this transformation ? 645 Monopol is and [23 JULY 1969] Rtstricthe Trade 646 Practices Bill, 1967

SHRI BANKA BEHARY DAS: having assets of more than Rs. 5 crores. They That is, unless the public sector takes the control assets to the extent of 17.5 per cent. I commanding 1 eights in the economy, you can am leaving aside all industries of the Tatas m ver stop the growth of monopolies. I spite with less than Rs. 5 crores. These nine units of whatever law you may pas;, the economics are having assets of more than Rs. 5 crores of large-scale industri* s will always favour each. Out of the 101 corporate giants the such people and \ ill never favour the medium Tatas control about 17.5 per cent, assets. The and snail-scale industries. Mr. Vice-Chairmar, Birlas control eleven units which is about 12.1 in this Bill we have set out that when one- per cent, of assets of these giant concerns. I third of the production is mor jpolised by a am not going to give more details of these particular industry or ; group of industries, or things. I want to draw your attention to the is controlled by ousiness houses, then the recent survey conducted by the Company Law Monopolies B II will take care of them, that Department. In spite of the industrial licensing the Bill will not allow them to grow, that it wi policy and so-called Avadi Resolution of the 1 keep a watch over them. But I may tell you Congress, what happened in the economy ? in Holland and Belgium the law provides that The same persons against whom a campaign where 20 per cen of production is is being carried on throughout the country and monopolised, the vlonopoly Law will come to in this House, are growing with the blessings the rescue of the economy to the disadvantage of the Government, deliberately or otherwise. >f the monopolists. But, has it occurn d there The law of economics helps them and the ? Only in the Scandinavian o untries the financial conditions of this country help them cooperative sector is in a commanding to grow. 1 am not very happy though I position. In the Scandinavia i countries the welcome the nationalisation of banks. But I public sector is in a g eater advantageous know what happened to the State Bank of position. Monopo) / has not grown there to India and the Life Insurance Corporation. that exter | to which it has grown in countr es They all indicated that so long as there is no like America, France, etc. The •ublic sector transformation, so long as there is no change without changing its pre: ent character can in the structure of the economic, political and never help the ecc lorny. It will only help the social conditions of this country, this monopolis s in this country. If you see the Monopolies Bill will never help the economy ecoi omy of France you will find that a n ach in the desired direction. It will still help only greater percentage of the econor y is the Tatas and the Birlas, whatever might be controlled by the public sector ii comparison the wishes of this Government; whatever to this country which adv> cates to establish a might be the desire of this Government to socialistic pattern c f society. In Italy also all attain its social objectives. financial ins itutions are nationalised. Oil industrie are in the nationalised sector. Yet, i [THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN in the Chair] lat has not ceased to be a capitalist < ountry, nor has it put any brake on t le growth of Madam Deputy Chairman, I am not going monopoly. Therefore, vith these arguments I to give more details of it. But I want to add want to impress i pon you that unless there is that it is not the Indian monopolists alone that a transfoi nation in the economy, whether in are controlling the economy. Foreign agriculture or in industry, this Bill i not going investment and foreign collaboration are also to help and it will only help the monopolists playing a major role in this connection. Most to grow in this coui try, whatever might be the of the industries like tea, coal and cigarettes, pious wishes of the Government, whatever m are controlled not only by the Indian ght be the Directive Principles of the monopolists but also by the foreign Constitution. In this connectio I I just want to monopolists. Foreign monopolists also control quote the Eco lomic Times which has carried these industries. You might have recently seen out i survey recently. They carried out a urvey a report that all the three cigarette companies of about 101 corporate giants in the private which control 80 per cent of the total sector. What is the result ? The result is this. production of cirgarettes in this country, are The Tatas control nine units each, foreign-owned or foreign-dominated companies. They are not indigenous. The harm to our economy comes not 647 Monopolies and [RAJYA SAPHA] Restrictive Trade 648 Practices Bill, 1967

[Shri Banka Behary Das] because in the present structure of industry big enterprises are inevitable ; otherwise, you only from the Indian monopolists and the do not exploit the economies of production. indigenous industrialists but also from I was much impressed by some observations outside. In this connection, I would like by a of the Joint Committee : to refer you to a small news item today about foreign monopoly in the oil industry. I am "Large companies and large-, talking of the Esso, the Caltex and the production are essential to secure Burma-Shell Companies. The Burma- economy. Optimum efficiency of Shell under pressure of the Government operation demands large plants and has now agreed to reduce the price of co- ,:ch and highly developed Iranian crude oil from 1.38 dollars to marketing arrangements. Large- 1.34 dollars per barrel, that is, by 4 cents stale units are necessary to be able to only. We know the international price at the raise the necessary capital, to take risks, moment is 1.28 dollars. The Burma- to improve technical efficiency and Shell has agreed to reduce its price only competitive strength in international by 4 cents. The other companies have not markets and to increase exports which are agreed to do it. I am sure if these three so vital to our economy. Only big companies are forced to reduce their price at concerns will be able to develop new least by 10 cents, we can save a lot of markets and create demand for new foreign exchange. We can save products." foreign exchange to the tune of 6.25 crores. At the moment we are all squandering our foreign exchange. If this small The growth of big enterprises is inevitable in measure could be enforced and the the modern industrial structure. Now, it is companies are forced to reduce their prices only when these big enterprises tend to to the international price, we could have become monopolies that the mischief starts. saved a lot of foreign exchange. I am And what is that mischief ? The mischief is, giving this instance to you only to show that it as one Finance Minister put it, when the con- is not only the Indian monopolists that are centration of power operates in keeping holding the entire country to ransom, but also prices at high level, in cornering supplies, in the foreign monopolists have a big share ultimately exercising some kind of political in it. I would, therefore, say that this Bill patronage. These are the mischiefs that arise will serve only a limited purpose. The from big enterprises when they tend to become people concerned with implementing this monopolistic. So far as this Bill goes, it law will be able to reduce the scope of places a curb on the monopolists. But, the monopoly conditions only to some extent. procedure that is set out in the Bill which is The monopolists will continue to grow in based on experience of other countries and of this country unless a socio-economic trans- our country is a slow process. And 1 think formation takes place in the society and unless the anticipation is right that we will be faced the public sector which ought to be in a with a very tedious process indeed to ik up commanding position changes its character these big enterprises which operate as completely so that it subserves the interests of monopolies. Let us always be reminded of the nation and not the interests of a few one thing. Our Constitution-makers did place persons or the interests of the party in a limit on this matter. I will refer to the power. Directive Principles which should be carefully read : With this reservation that this measure is not going to help the economy in any way "The State shall, in particular, except for mitigating some of the evils, I direct its policy towards securing— support this Bill. 'that the operation of the economic system does not result in the SHRI M. N. KAUL : Madam Deputy concentration of wealth and means of Chairman, I have listened to this debate on production to the common detriment.' " various occasions with a great deal of interest. The two things that are confused are Now, these four words, "to the common the big enterprises and the monopolies. Now, detriment", are enshrined in the this distinction should be borne in mind 649 Mono dies and [23 JULY 1969] Restrictive Trade 650 Practices Bill, 1967

Constitution itse f. The Constitution-makers total wealth. I wish calculations were to be envisage 1 that big enterprises were made as to how much of the total wealth that inevitable. Ultimately the idea is that they is produced over a period by these big houses should be under public ownership. That will has been invested in the industries themselves take a long lime to come about in a large how m'ich of its has gone towards their sphere. In the meantime, ;he Government can personal expenditure. My own surmise is thai proceed only in accordance with ' the i a very large percentage of the surpluses of declared objecth e of the Constitution, that is these industries has gone as investment into to say, ney break up these big enterprises tjree very industries or allied industrieHp It is when they tend to become monopolies or \ true that they retain the ownership because hen they operate to the detriment o the that ownership gives them a certain control common good. And please rem mber that the over extensive areas of industry which may Government is not orr lipotent in this matter be exercised in wrong ways. because the ex .ression 'public detriment' is justicia >le ; the matter can be taken to the co I am one of those who believe that the rts. The views of the courts are a de ermining political consequences of big enterprises are more important than K economic factor in the execution of thi Bill. The first consequences, because after ail, apart from limitation is that of he Constitution itself. The monopolistic actions, the surpluses that are Bill proceed > on the basis of constitutional saved are invested in the same industries or provisio is. The second limitation is the opin allied industries. Further, look at the amount on of the courts. The 11 or 12 Judge in the of percentage that is taken away in taxes. If Supreme Court have their own views of the you abolish all these big enterprises by one matter. That has been c le of the major stroke tomorrow, I think a very large slice of hurdles in America at c te time. The judiciary revenue by way of income-tax, supertax and can knock out :ertain actions that the other taxes will be lost to the State. It is not Government wa its to take; they can knock that the thing is wholly evil ; one has to view out certa n provisions of the Bill ; they hav it dispassionately, the good and bad conse- ample powers and their word is fi lal in the quences of these big enterprises. Carnagie sense that if certain provisio: s are in himself has pointed out that after a stage is contravention of the Fundami ntal Rights, reached millionaires are not interested in the then the sovereignty of Parliament itself in wealth as such; they are interested in the regard to that i latter is restricted. So let us be wealth because it gives them' control over quite clear that this Bill will not achieve mir larger and larger areas and they become steel icles. kings, coal kings and all kinds of kings. There seems o be a misconception that if you brc tk up big enterprises, that would hav The late President Eisenhower referred to a magical effect in bringing about 1 ippiness what is called the military industrial complex. all round. This is a complete m sconception. That has now become a political expression. The point is that the con-' position of the That is so because on various kinds of atomic national production of lach year has got to programmes and other programmes the change in such a manner and distributed in military spends such huge "sums of money ; such a n anner that it results in the welfare they are interlinked with big enterprises and of fie masses. they want to keep certain things going and with their influences in the Congress, in the Now while »: are on this subject, it is Senate and in many other places thev want to important to remember one thing. I have so manipulate things that the President's hands been read ng some biographies of American are tied. So we have to be watchful that millionaires; of course they are very big. political influences do not percolate in our Carnagie says in his biography that the system. Whatever we may do, we can only wealth increases so fast in the present limit if ; it is inherent in the system and in industrial system and it does increase human nature. because bigness has to come about in view of the economies that are involved. Even an individual millionaire and his family, howsoever extravagant thev may be, they cannot spend even a snail fraction of their 651 Monopolies and [RAJYA SABHA] Restrictive Trade 652' Practices BUI, 1967

[Shri M. N. Kaul] I regret that this expression 'mixed I was reading the scandals that are economy' was conceived. The Governor of the associated with the space programme, in Bank of England, while talking to a journalist millions. If any Member is interested, he can the other day, said that it is a sort of mixed up see the last three editions of the 'Sunday economy. I believe the real thing is gradual Times'. There were allegations against public ownership. That is really our policy; Senators and other important people whose gradually and by stages we should take as names have been given, how they managed to many private enterprises as we can under give contracts, to their favourites. We should public ownership if it is in the national interest looTc at the other countries. Sometimes, sitting to do so. That is the true solution. In the in the House, I am depressed that only the bad meantime, the welfare of the people, of the is emphasised and the good is not coming into masses, should be achieved in the manner light; there is reason for it. In America there suggested by me so that larger and larger are big millionaires and side by side the surpluses in the budget are devoted to those standard of living is also rising and therefore objectives. the corruption in that society and the bad influences in that society are not highlighted to such a great extent. Why are they THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRIAL highlighted in India ? The true reason is that (SHRI FAKHRUDDIN ALI the standard of the masses has not risen so TRADE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS appreciably. I suggest that the true solution is (SHRI FAKHRUDDIN ALI not in breaking up big enterprises but we AHMED) : Madam, the report of the Joint should curb the anti-social practices and Committee on the Monopolies and Restrictive restrictive trade practices. We should not Trade Practices Bill, 1968 has been under carve out such small units which will be discussion for-some time in this House. I am unproductive and will raise the cost of grateful to hon'ble Members for their very production. valuable observations during the present and the previous session also. I must say that, going Now we have been going to foreign through these observations, I found countries. Let us take the Communist overwhelming support to recommendation countries. What have they achieved ? There made by the-Joint Committee so far as the we see that the common man gets all sorts of provisions of the Bill are concerned. The help. The rent that he pays for his house just observations made by Members can be divided covers its repairs. Then he has free medical into three categories. A few Members have aid. Then his children are educated right up to opposed the provisions of the-Bill because of the university standard free of cost. Then we this different outlook and because they think find that transport is cheap and we also find that any kind of restriction is not in the interest that all the essential articles like food and of the industrial production. They do not be- clothing are provided at minimum rates. I lieve in public enterprises and they want to see think that is what we should do. Merely complete laissez faire for the development of breaking up big enterprises will not be industries in our country. There are others who sufficient. We can achieve the welfare of the have given expression to some doubts while poor man if we produce what he needs and supporting the provisions of the Bill. They then the things can be properly distributed. If have said that this Bill, by itself, will not be of the Government builds up surpluses by high any use unless and until some other measures taxation and by profits of public enterprises, to curb monopolies are taken and unless and then those surpluses can be utilised in until there is a complete change in the providing to the masses the things which I economic policy of the Government. There are have enumerated above. others who have not so much discussed the The true solution, Madam, lies in the report of the Committee or the provisions of extension of public ownership and that can the Bill but emphasised the administration come about only slowly. If it is proceeded aspect of the provisions. I entirely agree that with at a rapid rate, it will destroy the very that is an important aspect which we shall have ideals which we all applaud. The quality of to keep in view after the Bill is enacted and the the Administration has also to be built up. provisions of the Bill are brought into 653 Monopol, s and [23 JULY 1969] Restrictive Trade 654 Practices Bill, 1967 operation, but at present, we are not so much profit of 200 per cent and does not expand. concerm d with that aspect h the valuable The country is crying for more telephones and observations by Members will be helpful to for better services. It gives us the most us in taking the necessary steps in that inefficient services. The telephone operators direction. At present we are more concerned do not listen. We getting the connections. We with such provisions a: , placed before the are not Ministers to get clear lines and they House on the basi of the report of the Joint charge us heavily and they make 200 per cent Committee. Therefore I would not at this profit. The other aspect is, there are public stage 1 ke to deal with that aspect of the qu undertakings that go on making losses for stion and the other observations which have which we have to pay more taxes. Both of no relevance so far as this B 1 is concerned them I mentioned. but would deal with some of the observations which have a direct bearing on the provisions SHRI FAKHRUDDIN ALI of t ie Bill and the report of the. Select Com nittee. AHMED : 1 am sorry he wauis to divert my attention to matters which are not relevant for to-day's discussions but 1 would first of all like to deal with may I point out that the profit made 2 or 3 observati jns made by Shri by the telephone industry does not go bhai Patel. He said : 'What is into the pocket of individuals but is the use of bringing only private enter ised for ether public purposes and prise under the piovisions of the Bill? that is what we are aiming at. If a Why should not this Bill cover the pub public enterprise earns profit, that will lic enterprises also*? I do not know be utilised not for the benefit of the how there can be i monopoly so far as individual but for the people at large. the public undertakings are concerned So far as his reference to losses by because the purpoe of the Bill, as has public undertakings is concerned, some just now been enuiciated by Mr. Kaul, times we will have an occasion to dis is to prohibit or orevent concentration cuss it. This is not such simple matter of wealth in the h tnds of a few, which which car be dispc^ few trend is detriment il to the public inte- sentences but may I point out that the id also to pr ihibit and check mal picture depicted by him does not do practices. How c m there be any pro justice to the public enterprise. If we vision to check th' profits derived from : actually go into the necessity or other public undertak ich will only be wise of public sectc". we will *ind utilised for a public purpose and not for any such investment as has been w individual purpose ? would have been impossible for a private individual to make and the SHRI DAHYA13HAI V. PATEL: manufactures from these public under They do not ma! e any profit. They make takings have made us self-re'' only losses md they continue to be Secondly, the gestation period of monopolies. public undertakings is ve and and the result will be seen after a few years. Thirdly, there has been over SHRI FAK HRUDDIN A LI capitalisation. In the private sector no AHMED : My fi end is now shifting to some one starts with a 1 e public other gn und. His point was that so far as prol sector has been loaded with the burden of loan ibition for concentration of wealth is from the very beginning and it is paying concerned, it should not be confined i-nly to interest and compound interest with the result the private sector bin should be extended to that it shows losses. These are matters which public undertakings. My reply is that because we are looking into. Then I would like to tell our policy is the i evelopment of public that such public undertakings which are of the sector, so how c n we prohibit such consumer category do not show losses and if development unde the public sector? we also eliminate the expenditure incurred on the social aspect of the thing, then many of SHRI DAHY.A BHAI V. PATEL : He has the other public undertakings will be found misunderstood what I said. I attacked the yielding profit and not losses as my friend public sector from both points of view. For would like us to believe. Anyway these instance take the telephone industry. That matters are not germane to the discussion makes a huge 7—13 R.S. /69 here. Here is a Bill which 655 Monopolies and [RAJYA SABHA] Restrictive Trade 656 Practices Bill, 1967

[Shri Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed.] SHRI DAHYABHAI V. PATEL : provides for prohibition of certain tendencies And you learn from Naxalites. in private sector and has no application whatsover so far as public undertakings are SHRI FAKHRUDDIN ALI concerned. AHMED : Then, Sir, there have been some observations made by Shri Niran-jan Varma. 4 P.M. He also emphasised the point that public sector undertakings have not been brought The hon. Member's second point was, his within the purview of the Bill. My reply is the objection was to the definition of "inter- same as with regard to the point raised by Mr. connected undertakings" as adopted by the Patel. Shri Niranjan Varma also said that the Joint Committee. I am sure he remembers that age of 65 years fixed by the Select Committee the Committee had spent quite a good portion for the Members of the Commission is too of its time in discussing this matter and after a much and would deprive the younger persons. threadbare discussion had decided to adopt It may be pointed out that the original Bill as this Clause. Therefore 1 see no reason why we introduced by the Government did not should now agree to any modification as to contain any restriction as such. However, what has been recommended after thorough the Committee, in its wisdom, felt that no discussion in the Joint Committee. Member of the Commission should hold office for a total period exceeding 10 years, or after Then he also laid charge that onesided he has attained the age of 65 years, whichever evidence was recorded by the Committee and is earlier. The hon. Member, who was also a -that no witness from any foreign country was member of the Committee, was perhaps called to give evidence before the Committee. present at the time when this decision was The hon. Member will remember that insofar taken by the Commm I do not know how this as the matter of selecting witnesses is question can be raised by him now. Also, concerned, Government had no hand no fresh ground has been indicated by him whatsoever in it and it was for the Committee to support his contention. He has also to decide. And whomsoever they wanted to suggested that the period for which a member examine, they have been examined, and I do should stand debarred after he has ceased to be not know how he can blame the Government a member of the Commission should be 10 for not summoning the witnesses as were not years, instead of 5 years as provided in Clause summoned by the Joint Committee. 6 of the Bill. The period of 5 years is based on the recommendation of the Monopolies SHRI ARJUN ARORA (Uttar Pradesh) : Inquiry Commission and was also provided The Committee did not refuse any request for in the original Bill. The from any foreigner. But no foreigner took any recommendation of the Commission was interest, much to the lament of the Swatantra considered and duly approved by the Party. Committee. After all this, it is not open to the hon. Member to raise this objection, because SHRI DAHYABHAI V. PATEL : I the Committee has given due consideration to had suggested it, but no notice was taken. it. {Interruptions) Certainly I suggested it and they could have been invited. SHRI DAHYABHAI V. PATEL : It is only a recommendation of the Committee. SHRI ARJUN ARORA : Why should they be invited ? Is this House not entitled to change it ?

SHRI DAHYABHAI V. PATEL : If SHRI FAKHRUDDIN ALI you want to improve your economy, if you AHMED : I have also said that no fresh want to learn from their experience of their grounds have been given by him in support of economy. If you do not want to learn from his contention. them, it is a different matter. SHRI ARJUN ARORA : You go to learn SHRI DAHYABHAI V. PATEL : from them. That is all right, but the House is certainly entitled to change it. 657 Monopil's and [23 JULY 1969] Restrictive Trade 658 Practices Bill, 1967

SHRI FAKHFUDDIN ALI AHMED : Government only can take action under either Then, Ma.lam, the hon. Member, Shri Ajit Pra of those clauses. But as for the direction that ad Jain, made some very valuable they should not do such and such things, that observations. I wish he had been here to listen cannot be interpreted as something like a to the replies which I have to give with regard penalty or a punishment. to three or four matters raised by him. He specifically mentic led that the machinery to The hon. Member has also referred to administer the law would be inadequate, and various other points, such as the meaning of for this purpose he has alluded to the portion the term 'relatives', 'assets', etc. With prevalent in the U.K., where two s iparaie reference to his doubt in respect of the bodies, namely, Restrictive Practices Court, meaning .of the term 'relative', I would like to and Monopolies Commission are in existence. invite his attention to sub-clause 2(y) which May I po it this cut, Madam ? So far as our provides that "words and expressions used but 3,ii is concerned, we provide for one < not defined in this Act and defined in the Commission; but that one Commission h also Companies Act, 1956, have the meanings free to have two Benches. One Be ich can deal respectively assigned to them in that Act". with the monopoly matter, and the other one The term "'relative' has been defined in clause with the restrictive trade practices. So the 41 of seciie: read with section 6 and Schedule difficulty which he visualises can easily be 1A of the Companies Act. He has said that it overcome when the two matters are given to is not clear whether the value of assets as two different Benches of the Monopolies defined in the Bill also includes that of stocks. Commission, and it is not necessary for I do not see any reason for having this doubt. purposes of disposing of these two different The term 'assets' would be interpreted matters that we should set up two different according to the normal business practice; no bodies. One Commission can spiit into two separate explanation is necessary. It may benches and > an dispose of matters pertaining however be mentioned that 'stock' is an 'asset' to these different aspects, and I am sure the of the company. difficulty, which he thought would bi felt, can easily be overcome by thI provision that is Then I would refer to the point raised by presently there, because they can have two the hon. Member, Shri Krishan Kant, that sub- Benches und;r the same Commission. Sub- clause (g)(iii)(c) will not be operative with the clause 16(2) of the Bill empowers the abolition of the managing agency system from Chairnan to constitute separate Benches, am 3rd April, 1970. In this connection I would therefore I submit that there will be no like to point out that the said provision difficulty so far as this point is concerned. mentions that two or more undertakings would become inter-connected if they are Then the hon. Member has also said that under the same management within the the Bill contemplates imposition of double meaning of section 370 of the Companies Act. punishmei t by two different authorities for 1956. As may be seen from section 370, the same offence. I think here also there is clause (IB), of the Companies Act, it contains some erroneous misconception. I tr ink he has several other criteria for judging whether two in mind clause 31, sub-cl; use 37(4) and bodies corporate are under the same clause 50 of the Bill. ut they are for different management or not. It is not only the same purposes. T he position, so far as the second managing agents but there are other criteria prov sion is concerned is that under that, after also, and if they apply, there will be no the Commission has made a reco nmendation, difficulty. It is not only that two bodies the Government can take necessary action, but corporate under the same managing agents are so far as the firs; provision is concerned it treated as under the same management. In this only gives t'irection to the parties. And that connection I would like to draw attention to cannot be construed as something by way of sub-clauses (ii) to (v) of subsection (13) of punishment. So there are no two pun -hments section 370 of the Companies Act. Further, it provided for; there is only one punishment is premature to envisage at this stage as to what provided for which can onlv be given on a alternative form of consultancy service is recommendation of th \ Commission, likely to crop up after the abolition of the where managing agency system. 659 Monopolies and [RAJYA SABHA] Restrictive Trade 660 Practices Bill, L967

[Shri Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed.] He has also referred to labour participation in management. That is also a matter which The hon. Member has also expressed a cannot be dealt with in the scope of the doubt whether sub-clause 2(g) (iv) would present Bill. cover benami holdings. As far as I could see, the term 'indirectly' used therein should cover Then Shri Dwijendralal Sen Gupta has benami holdings also. However, this is a referred to 50 per cent and 33 per cent matter for the couits to give an authoritative mentioned in clause 2(d) and 2(j) in the Bill interpretation on the subject. In case any and said that it is too big a concession to the action is considered necessary in this regard, industrialists. This point has been considered the same will be looked into in due course, at length by the Select Committee and after a but I think at present it is not necessary to do good deal of discussion and consideration this anything though I believe that the word provision has been made and I hope this will 'indiretcly' is sufficient to cover benami. be acceptable to the House. I do not think that any further modification is called for in that SHRI KRISHAN KANT (Haryana): direction. 'Benami' has not been defined anywhere in the law. Shri T. N. Singh had raised some doubts as to how the division would be effected. I would like to invite his attention to sub-clause SHRI FAKHRUDDIN ALI AHMED : It is (1) of clause 27 under which the Commission very difficult to define mi. So what I feel is is expected to specify the manner in which the that the word 'indirectly' will serve many of division would be effected. That is a thing the purposes, may also include benami, which which we cannot lay down in the provisions the hon. Member has in view. And it is very of the Bill and that work has been left to the very difficult to define benami in the present Commission to do after taking into law. consideration the various aspects and circumstances and it will specify how it is to far as Shri B. K. P. Sinha is concerned, be effected. My impression is that he he has made a general speech on economic overlooked this provision and that was why theory, that mercantilism le ids to capitalism he raised this point. So far as the Bill is and capitalism leads to combination which concerned that does make a provision and this restrict competition. I need not go into this duty has been entrusred to the Commission. question at this stage. He also made some observations regarding economic aspects and so on. Again those are He has raised another point and demanded a matters which need not be considered at this sophisticated powerful intelligence system on stage. The onlv relevant point was about the pattern of the one prevalent in the U.S.A. division and I have said that there is provision This ap-s to be more or less an administrative in the Bill in clause 27 and this work of problem and it has nothing to do with the division will be looked after by the legislation which we are considering. It will Commission. be taken care of when the administrative machinery is set up. Today Mr. Mitra raised the point relating to the expression "substantial part". May I point out that it is the Joint Committee that He has also raised the question of substituted the words "India or any substantial providing alternative arrangements to the part thereof" for the words "India or any part small and up-coming entrepreneurs. So far as thereof and they have given reasons for this. If this question is concerned it finds clearly he will kindly look at page (iv) of the Report mentioned, in the Government Resolution on he will find that they have given sufficient the Report of the Monopoly Enquiry reasons why they have substituted this Commission wherein while mentioning about expression in the Bill. It should only be the non-legislative measures the steps to be construed to have the ordinary meaning given taken by the Government for the development in the dictionary. It means anything which is of small-scale industries have clearly been opposed to nominal. indicated. 661 Monop lie,- and [23 JULY 1969] Restrictive Trade 662 Practices Bill, 1967

The other poii t raised by Mr. Mitra about as you are saying it, we understand a West the c :(inition of 'dominant undertaking'. A German economic mission is here and they are lout that 1 have already made my having some discussion for a loan to the submission. He also •-aid that the ch Government of India. Is it a fact that Mr. Biju lirmanship should not be restricted to High Patnaik has been asking for 75 million DMs out Court Judges and that Government should of the loans from West Germany to be allotted find out persons who have faith i 1 to him so that he can start a fertiliser factory at socialism and so on. I think it is ver Muttra ? On the one hand you are saying difficult to lay down the qualification of this thing but on the other hand to the best chairmen and we thought that unc ;r the of my knowledge negotiations are going on present circumstances the qual Bcation laid and I think the Government also has been down by us was the most suitable and that approached by Mr. Biju Patnaik. Punjab has also been accep |d by the Joint Com- money he did not get but now West Germany is mittee and that hould stand as it is. offering you a loan out of which Mr. Biju Patnaik is asking for 75 million DMs. Will VIr. Bhargava in dealing with these you kindly throw some light on this subject provisions was very pessimistic about the and tell us how you square this up with some result which his Bill will produce. I entirely of the good sentiments that you have spelt out agree v ith him that merely passing a legisla just now ? Mind you, when the former ion is not adequate. The enabling provisions Finance Minister was in West Germany Mr. that have been provided cast U] in the Biju Patnaik went there and the two of them Government an had negotiations with the Germans and now igation to imrlement them in a pro-manner that is being clinched here. The Punjab so that they can serve the objective for wl Government refused him and you also did not ich this Bill has been brought before the proceed further because of public opinion that House. Those doubts were expressed during he should not be allowed that. He was the last session and afte- that the" allowed to go there, meet the Finance Minister Government have taken another step there—a coincidence—and he had talks with towards this very objective by nationalising them. Now, surprisingly enough, the House the banks. I am s ire that many of the doubts should know, the Government should come which w ;re expressed by the hon. Members and tell us why the loan is not being utilised v ill have been removed. I think the for the public sector and instead 75 million nationalisation of banks together with oth> Deutsche Marks are being planned to be r steps with regard to the licensing policy given to Mr. Biju Patnaik to start a factory in which Government is pcing to tnkc after the private sector. Kindly enlighten us. Can taking into consideration the R< port which you, first of all, deny it? is before us will be helpful n achieving the SHRI FAKHRUDDIN ALI AHMED : Mr. objective of preventir a such monopoly as Bhupesh Gupta has more information than I is have. trimental to he public interests. I would like to i oint out to the House our purpose is not to stifle industrial production in t >e SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : In all country; our objective is that it s tould go on fairness, can he deny it ? at a great pace but at the same time we do not want that the fr it of this increased pro- SHRI FAKHRUDDIN ALI AHMED : I duction should be enjoyed only by a few but have no knowledge, I can tell you. it shoul.i be enjoyed by a large section of the people in the country. The purpose o SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : He has this legislation is not that a few persons no knowledge. I put it to you. Let the Prime should have the opportunity of uti'ising the Minister come and deny this as the head of benefit of the financial instituions or the the Government. bank loans but a large r amber of entrepreneurs should have th< opportunity SHRI FAKHRUDDIN ALI AHMED : It of making investments and contribution to has nothing to do with what I am saying. increase the industrial production of the country. SHRI BHUffeSH GUPTA (West Bengal) : May I ask a question ? It is all right, what 5 ou are saying. But even 663 Monopolies and [RAJYA SABHAJ Restrictive Trade 664 Practices Bill, 1957

SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : Yes, it THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The relates to monopoly. question is : SHRI FAKHRUDDIN ALI AHMED : I "That the Bill to provide that the am only saying that our purpose is to see that operation of the economic system does not the funds which we have at our disposal are result in the concentration of economic not allowed to be utilised for the benefit of a power to the common detriment, for the few. It should be allowed to be used in such a control of monopolies, for the prohibition 5 thai there may be dispersal of en- of monopolistic and restrictive trade trepreneurship and more investment in small- practices and for matters connected scale industries, ancillary industries, in the therewith or incidental thereto, as reported agricultural sector and so on. That is our by the Joint Committee of the Houses, be objective. Now, this Bill and various other taken into consideration." measures which the Government are considering or contemplating will serve that The motion was adopted. objective. Now, so far as the specific question is concerned, it is not dealt with by me. So, I THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : We do not know about it. That is why I said that shall now take up the clause by clause perhaps he has more information than I have. I consideration of the Bill. Clause 2— there are know nothing about it. So, I cannot enlighten 23 amendments. him. Clause 2—Definitions SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : If the hen. Minister is telling the truth, I must say SHRI DAHYABHAI V. PATEL : that I have more information than he has. Madam, I move :

SHRI FAKHRUDDIN ALI AHMED ; 2. "That at page 6, line 13, the words 'or That is what I have said. otherwise controls' be deleted." 3. "That at page 6, lines 16 to 26 be SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : But kindly deleted." find out and enlighten yourself. 4. "That at page 6, lines 31-32, after the word 'undertaking' the words 'provided the SHRI AKBAR ALI KHAN (An-dhra share of each such undertaking is more than Pradesh) : But generally it is incorrect. fifteen per cent.' be inserted." SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : Madam, the 5. That at Page 7, lines 4 to 6 be Biju Patnaik specialist is here. deleted." SHRI FAKHRUDDIN ALI AHMED : Has 6. "That at page 7, for lines 14 to 18, he passed on the information to you ? the following be substituted, namely :- SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : This is my 'Explanation VI.—For the purposes of speciality. this clause, production refers to the average of production made during the three calendar years immediately SHRI BANKA BEHARY DAS : Does Mr. preceding the preceding calendar year in Bhupesh Gupta know that just after Morarji which the question whether an undertak- Desai's resignation, Biju Patnaik went to ing is or is not a dominant undertaking is Mathura to see the site for fertiliser plant ? determined.'" THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : 7. "That at page 7, after line 18, Please sit down. the following be inserted, namely :— SHRI FAKHRUDDIN ALI AHMED : 'Explanation VII.—For the purposes With these few words, I commend this Bill for of this clause, 'goods' shall also be taken the acceptance of the House. to include such goods from other industries as serve a common end-use and a common category of consumers.' " 665 Monop lies and [23 JULY 1969] Restrictive Trade 666 Practices Bill, 1967

8. "That at »age 7, for lines 19 to 21, the folic wing be substituted, 20. "That at page 9, line 6, for the word namely :— 'one-half the word 'one-fifth' be substituted." '(e) 'gooes' includes goods produced, supplied or distributed in India, and 21. "That at page 9, lines 7-8, for the shall also include for the purpose of this words 'in India' the words 'in a State or Act, goods imported into India.'" States' be substituted." 9. "That at page 9, for lines 2 to 22. "That at page 9, line 10, for the 22, the following be substituted, word 'one-half the word 'one-tenth' be namely :— substituted." '(i) a dominant undertaking; or 23. "That at page 9— (ii) an u idertaking which by itself (i) at the end of line 11, after the products, supplies or distributes not le ;s word 'thereof the word 'or' be inserted; than one-fifth of the goods (incl (ding and imported goods) of any desci iption but (ii) after line 11, the following be which jointly with two oi more other inserted, namely :— producers of the sam:: or similar type of goods produces, supplies or distributes '(c) all the undertakings which are not Ifss than three-fourths of such goods controlled by the seventy-five or provides or controls not lea than business houses mentioned in the three-fourths of any service' in India or Monopoly Inquiry Commission's any substantial part thereof.' " Report.' 24. "That at page 9, line 25, for the SHRI BHUPI SH GUPTA : Madam, I word 'one-half the word 'one-fifth' b: move : substituted. 12. "That ;t page 6, line 10, for the 25. "That at page 9, line 26, for the word 'one-third' the word 'one-sixth' be word 'one-half the word 'one-tenth' be substituted." substituted." 13. "That | page 6, line 11, for the SHRI KRISHAN KANT : Madam, I move words 'it India' the words 'in a State or : States' be substituted." 34. "That at page 7, lines 42-43, for the 14. "That it page 6, lines 13-14, for the words 'not less than fifty per cent of the word '•ne-tbitd' the word 'one-tenth' be shares' the words 'the largest chunk of subsiituted." shares' be substituted." 15. "That t page 6, line '4, for the The questions were proposed. words 'ii India' the word's 'in a State or States' be substituted." SHRI DAHYABHAI V. PATEL : Madam. I must say that I an disappointed with the 16. "That t page 6, line 27, for the word answer that the hon. Minister has given us. 'one-third' the word 'one-sixth' be subs You know that, while we may not agree with ituted." the Government in this matter, we have co- operated thoroughly in the Committee. As I 17. "That :it page 6, line 42, for the have mentioned before, on many occasions word 'on -third' the word 'one-tenth' be you, the Chairman of the Committee, were not substituted." present and the Committee asked me to 18. "That it page 7, line 9, for the preside. I presided over it. In the Swatantra words 'in India' the words 'in a State or Party we do not believe in monopolies. We State? be substituted." want competition and only in competition can this country survive. The main Chapter III, 19. "That at page 8, line 8. after the which we will come to later, perhaps is the words ';:roup of persons' the words 'either most important part of this Bill. I would like directly or indirectly or through their the hon. Minisfer to take a little more liberal nominees or agents' be inserted." view and not stifle trade and industry ,that is growing and I would particularly 667 Monopolies and [RAJYA SABHA] Restrictive Trade 668 Practices Bill, 1967 [Shri Dahyabhai V. PateL] and increasing prices on the other. If the wastes that the public sector are making were stopped and they were all making profits, this point out the export trade about which he is s0 keen. I have a feeling that some of the high taxation would not be necessary and the provisions are going to affect our export trade. hon. Minister could proceed with his theory of I know that the Government is trying to take eliminating monopolies. If more money is away all trade and put it through the State available, more people would start enterprises. Trading Corporation. I do not know whether But, where is the money ? If sixty-five per the STC is doing as well, but what the STC is cent of a man's earnings go as tax, from where doing actually is the taking-over of the trade is he to get money to start enterprises ? This is that has been built up by private traders going to put a full stop to all enterprises and through the years and doing it on its own. This that is why I do not like some of the is not the occasion to go into what the STC is provisions of this Bill. I have suggested a very doing, whether it is doing well or not, but it is small modification here in this particular for this purpose that I have moved the amendment. The words "or otherwise amendments that stand in my name. Now this controls" are making it too wide and appeal to small amendment, I feel, is just trying to make the Minister to agree to this small amendment. it clear. I do not want to make the scope of it too wide. I want the deletion of the words "or SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : My friend. Mr. otherwise controls". The deletion of these Dahyabhai Patel, has spoken with affection words is really not going to make such a for the Chairman of the Select Committee, serious difference. 1 would appeal to the because you presided over that, you are very Minister to be reasonable and accept it. After reasonable, and, therefore, the Bill could be all, this is all done as a sort of blanket provi- passed through the Select Committee sion. You have mentioned some of the things. very You can specify it if you do not like a group ily. Now, he is asking for a very small or some people to control trade in this way or amendment. It is not as small an amendment that way, but what is the meaning of "or as he says. My amendments are entirely of a otherwise controls" ? Anyone who does different category. Here they fall in the same business or trade does control that trade or in- category, but they are all different from what dustry. Otherwise, how can it be done ? Have he has given. Now, it is the definition part of you ever heard of any enterprise where it is it, how you define 'monopoly'. My owned by somebody and controlled by amendments relate to clause 2 of the Bill. somebody else and run by somebody else ? Clause 2 carries an exhaustive definition of My friend, Mr. Bhupesh Gupta, could tell us. very many things, They are interlinked. Firsi We would like to know if it is done anywhere. of all, you take my amendment. It says here They make a profit, which is essential. After "(i) produces, supplies, distrib or all, any enterprise has to make a profit, otherwise controls not less than one-third whether it is a private enterprise or a of the total goods of any description that Government enterprise. A Government are produced, supplied or distributed in enterprise does not come to grief because they India or any substantial part thereof,". tax us more, which is wrong. They should not do it. They are robbing Peter to pay Paul all I say one-third is too big a percentage or the time. That is why prices in the country are too big a figure. I think it should be one-sixth. going up. That is unfortunately a different If they produce, supply or distribute or subject and I need not go into it in detail now, otherwise control ... but the crores of rupees that are lost in State SHRI DAHYABHAI V. PATEL : trading and by the public enterprises are made There will be no growth in this country. You good by taxation from the people, from the can say one per cent. rich and the poor. It is a misnomer to say that SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : I will not say these taxes are drawn only from the rich that. I am not as absurd as the Swatantra Party people. Ultimately they percolate to every sometimes is. section of the sociey and, therefore, it is that SHTl! DAHYABHAI V. PATEL : we have his peculiar phenomenon of poverty on the one hand What you are saying is equally absurd. 669 Monot lies and [23 JULY 1969] Restrictive Trade 670 Practices Bill, 1967 SHRI BHUPE SH GUPTA : If it is authorities concerned to decide how they equally absurd, I len 1 am in your line. Then should treat it and whether it comes within the you shoulc bear with me. One-sixth, what mischief of this provision. Otherwise 1 think does it mean ? One-sixth is not just one per many of these big monopolists or others will :ent. One-sixth will be around 16 to 7 per get it. For example, we need a particular kind cent. In our country where we have a situation of thing in the South or Kerala. They where small ind istries, whether in the public produce it in Bombay and sell these things in sector or in the private sector, have to play a i Kerala—the demand is not there in other art in the development of the economy, where States—and the local in-I: ies want to come we need a little dispersal from the up and find their own market internally. They concentration of wealth, where si tall units do will be facing unfair competition and they not exist, I think if you k< ep the figure one- would not be given the protection which is third, which means 3? per cent, it is a very big intended to be given by this particular figure. It is quite possible that some of the Monopolies Bill. That is why I have concerns ;ven with a control of 20 per cent or suggested this thing. I need not dilate upon o would be in a commanding positio: and that. It is quite clear. running to the detriment of t! e smaller units. We should not like to have that situation. That Again you find in the Explanation on page is number one. 6 of the Bill, line 27 : '"Where not less than one-third of the production or supply or distribution or control" etc. 1 make it one- Secondly, we have regional imbalances and sixth. Wherever it is "one-third" I make it regio; al disparities. We cannot expect that in "one-sixth", and wherever it occurs "in India" most of these areas we can be in a fosition, I make it "in a State or States". It is conse- whether in the private sector or public sector, quential. It gives more exact definition rather to set up very big ind istries. Now they will than a vague definition. In any event the have to develop on a smaller scale. If, for definition that you have adopted will be example, a particular industry produces one- unfair to the industrially backward States third >f the commodities and it operates all o' where we need to give protection and er the country, then in that case the sm Her encouragement to the smaller units to produce ones will be facing unfair competiti >n. Again their things and articles for internal why do I wan! the words 'in India" to be requirements and stand up to the competition substituted by the voids "in a State or Stiles'' coming from outside, from monopolist quar- ? Here it is said "in any substantial Part." How ters. do you understand it ? U'tar Pradesh /ould be a substantial part by itself. Cerala would not The hon. Minister was saying—I was be a substantial part by itself. Yet we are a little surprised, Mr. Fakhruddin Ah divided into virious States, big and small. We med is generally a truthful man and he wart all the States also to get due piotection is a very religious man—I was a little against monopoly operation. If, for example, surprised when he said he did not know. we find that an industry is being so operated When I say that, he smiles. Madam that t creates a situation where it gets tl e Deputy Chairman, here is Uttar Pra Kerala market but at the same time it has not desh. We certainly want to develop succeeded in getting the all-India market or Uttar Pradesh. Certain areas are not what you call a subst intial part of India, am I developed. In Punjab smaller indus to leave it out or should I not take action tries have developed. We want to fight against it and protect the industries in Kerala concentration there. As you know, the at Assam ? That is why I say from the joint of former Finance Minister was prepared view of giving protection to tl e less to give a loan of Rs. 20 crores or so developed areas and having in view the to Shri Biju Patnaik to start a fertilizer present situation of g_ross imbalances in factory or some such thing in Punjab. industrial development or regie la! disparities We exposed it. The Punjab Govern we should define it in tl s manner. It should be ment said they did not know. He tried "in a State >r States". That should be left open to push him in. He was not received to the Government or the there. Ever since then things are going on by coincidence or by design. It seems that when Mr. Morarji Desai, the then Finance Minister, was in West Germany, Mr. Biju Patnaik happened to meet him. 671 Monopolies and [RAJYA SABHA] Restrictive Trade 672 Practices Bill, 1967

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : You SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : Madam have already said that. Deputy Chairman, you are asking me to stop. Similarly I was asked not to proceed further SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : I have said when in 1966 I brought the news of Mr. that, but has he accepted it ? It is very important. Dharma Teja and his beautiful wife grabbing Rs. 20 crores. Today also I am telling you—I SHRI N. SRI RAMA REDDY (Mysore) : am not talking about wife or any such thing ... You have said that. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : You SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : He says 1 talk on the amendments. have said that. I am sure you are still in grief. He was almost weeping ... SHRI N. SRI RAMA REDDY: Bachelors have no business to talk about wives. SHRI N. SRI RAMA REDDY : I am never grieved because I am quite sure that the SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : Now regarding Communists will never rule this country. fertilizer production, should it be one-sixth or SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : That you are one-third ? They say that it should be one- sure of. I am concerned with the human part third. I say, in fertiliser production, if it is a of it. When I read in the newspapers that you private firm, it should be one-sixth, and it were weeping for Mr. Morarji Desai, I was should be considered in a State, not all over also feeling like weeping for you. the country, because it is locally consumed also. Biju Patnaik's story is now out. SHRI N. SRI RAMA REDDY ; I THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : I to weep for you because you will r be able to think you have covered all the amendments. rule this country, because this country will never become Communist. SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : Here you will find amendments from No. 12 to No. SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: That 25. If you give 30 seconds each . . . does not disqualify me from weeping. I may or may not rule this country, but does it THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : disqualify me from weeping ? I have tears in Please. Shri Krishan Kant has to speak after my eyes. You have tears in your eyes. They you. are all out on some occasion, mine too. SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : I invite your Therefore, I said what happened. Then attention to amendment No. 22. Mr. surprisinglyi enough negotiations started Dahyabhai Patel, you may disagree. Sub- there. Now I say Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed clause 2(j)(b) says — should talk to the Minister concerned and tell us whether what I have said is true or not. I "Provides or otherwise controls not less would ask the Government not to advance the than one-half of the services that are money out of the West German mark aid or rendered in India or any substantial part whatever you get, and 75 million West thereof :" German marks is not a small amount. You Here I would like it to be one-tenth,, not one- should not give it. If you allow these things to half which is too big a figure. And then I develop with the West German aid in the would like to insert : private sector, you are creating in Uttar Pradesh and other places a kind of monopoly. "(c) all the undertakings which are If you want to put Mr. Biju Patnaik with a controlled by the seventy-five business private enterprise, you are placing the houses mentioned in the Monopoly Inquiry peasantry, the farmers of Uttar Pradesh at the Commission's Report." mercy of one man or one firm which wants to set that up with the help of the West German It is very specific. You have the Monopolies aid. Therefore, it is a serious matter. I have Inquiry Commission Report before you on the just spelt it out and we shall be pursuing it in basis of which you have formulated this due course. particular measure. Why not have a concrete picture as to which should be dealt with ? THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : You wind Therefore, I say... up. 673 Mono} dies and [23 JULY 1969] Restrictive Trade 674 Practices Bill, 1967

THE DEPUT r CHAIRMAN : Mr. the country also. The result is that since the Gupta, please v ind up. The time is running publication of the Monopolies Inquiry out. Yi u must wind up. Commission's Report, these two big business houses have raised their assets from Rs. 711 (Int rruptions) crores to nearly Rs. 1,300 crores. Mr. Mafatlal has increased his assets by 175 per cent, SHRI BHUFESH GUPTA: The according to the report given out by Mr. Monopolies Inqi fry Commission's Report is 1 Fakhrud-din Ali Ahmed himself. Why should an officiE' Report. they not be included ? They should be barred, they should be curbed, their operation should SHRI M. N. KAUL : Names to be be controlled, particularly when you are mentioned ? operating generally against the monopolists and so on. That is why I have suggested this SHRI BHUPISH GUPTA: I am thing. The Birlas have increased their assets saying, the 75 business houses mentioned in by Rs. 500 crores in the last four years as the Monopolies Inquiry Commission's compared to the period under review by the Report. And legislation by reference is not Commission. Can I not ask them to include rule 1 out, it is quite admissible. Why c; n't we these people ? say 'those which have been menti med by the Report' ? Before I sit down, I should like to say that it is most unfortunate that even the very little SHRI M. N. liAUL : It means, by other findings of the Monopolies Inquiry statutes. Commission, when they are concrete, they are not properly incorporated in a suitable manner SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : It is the in a legislative form, the recommendations official Report about which I am saying. are not 'liven a nrooer legislative from in this particular Bill. That is why I suggested this THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : Please thing. wind up. I do not wish to take much of your time. SHRI BHUPt SH GUPTA : There are not Seventy-five families among them constitute many ar icndments. I have to explain this the villain of the piece. They have ruined amendment. Otherwise, it is not very effei many of our things and they should certainly tive. Why I say this is, 75 houses ha-1 e been be named, thrashed and lambasted and put located and established as ve y dangerous here as the target of attack. Otherwise, there is business houses wit', a reat concentration of no meaning in having a provision of this kind. wealth and economic power. Since the Monopolies Inqi fry Commission's Report SHRI KRISHAN KANT : My amendment was published, two of them, the Tatas and the is very simple. Tt is just to help the Birlas have, between them, amassed a sets... Government in order really to clarify the whole situation. The particular sub-clause THE DEPUT f CHAIRMAN : We says : are not going in 5 -. discussion. "(iv) where one undertaking is owned SHRI BHUP iSH GUPTA : . . . by a body corporate and the other is owned from Rs. 711 ci ores ... by a firm, if one or more partners of the firm,— THE DEPl TY CHAIRMAN : Please say only a few words on the (a) hold, directly or indirectly, not amendment. less than fifty per cent, of the shares, whether preference or equity, of the SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : A few body corporate, or", words do not help. Then, let him accept it. I say that instead of 'not less th?n fifty per THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : How do cent of the shares', it should be 'the largest you know whether he is accepting or not ? chunk of the shares.' It is because we know that no public limited company is started with SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : The a majority of 51 per cent share. In the argument is not meant only for the Minister, present con- it is meant for Parliament and 675 Monopolies and [RAJYA SABHA] Restrictive Trade 676 Practices Bill, 1967

[Shri Krishan Kant.] SHRI DAHYABHAI V. PATEL : Technically speaking, I want to speak on Mr. text of our country, the LIC and the other Bhupesh Gupta's amendment, particularly public financial institutions always take some when he was referring to production going shares of that public limited company. The from one area to another. My reply to that LIC takes 30 per cent of the shares. Then the would be or my feeling is—that the persons who sponsor the firm or the company Government of India and Ihe State have just to have 36 per cent of the shares to Government have got plenty of power in their get control over the whole company. The LIC hands to see that the power of production is does not interfere with the working of these not abused. I can give a very simple example companies because they do not vote there. that happened in the State of Bombay. Bidi is Even when they vote, the instructions are that in very common use all over India. More or they should \ote with the owners or less it is a cot^ tage industry. Some proprietors of the companies. So, this 50 per enterprising man in Bombay spent lot of cent is a myth. While speaking on the motion, money and devised a machine that would be I said that it was a myth which should be worked by hand and produce a thousand bidis exploded. Even 51 per cent is useless. If we easily in an hour. If it wag run by electricity have collaboration, the foreign collaborators by putting a motor one single person could have got 49 per cent and we have 51 per cent. produce 10,000 bidis per day. But the All those 49 per cent will certainly vote with Government of Bombay have got powers. those persons who are collaborating. Those They banned the use of that machinery. 1 am persons have to take only 26 per cent to not going into the merits or demerits of those control the whole 100 per cent. Ten or twenty powers, whether they are right or wrong. But I or thirty per cent shares are distributed all say that .the Government has got plenty of over the country and the persons who hold a powers, apart from the Bill, by which they can smaller number of shares, they do not go to restrict the abuse of power. This is just taking attend the annual general hod\ meeting. There one more bit of power which is not necessary. are also the absentee shareholders who do not I would like to see the Government come participate in the real functioning of the com- forward with a Bill which would encourage pany. What happens ? We see that the production in this country. At a time when corporate bodies or companies having 10 or they are talking of increasing their production 20 or 25 or 30 per cent of shares hold the and competing in the world market, I think we dominant shares and control the companies. If are not looking to world trends. In England we go by the definition of 50 per cent, the the Government of Great Britain, gave much Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices aid for combines and companies which were Commission will not be able to function capable of offering competition like the effectively because no company might come electrical companies. They were aided by within the purview of 50 per cent. That is why large aids to combine so that they could meet I have given this amendment th.U instead of the competition in the world market. I would 50 per cent, it should be 'a large chunk of like the hon'ble Minister to apply his mind and shares', because those people's relations may think of something like that instead of putting hold a larger number of shares, and if they are these curbs which are going to curb the counted and calculated, then the functioning development of industry in this country. of the Commission would become easier. Otherwise, the whole purpose of the Bill may SHRI FAKHRUDDIN ALT AHMED : be defeated. Madam, first of all I will take up the amendments of Shri Dahyabhai Patel. I would request the Minister to kindly look at it from this angle and accept the His first amendment, that is amendment amendment. No. 2, seeks the deletion of the words "or otherwise controls" in subclause 2(d) part (ii). I would like 1O submit that our reason for SHRI DAHYABHAI V. PATEL : using these words is to include not only Madam . . . undertakings which produce, distribute or supply goods but also those which THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : You otherwise want to speak ? You will be very brief. 677 Monopolies and [23 JULY 1969] ResirktUt Trade 678 Practices Bill, 1967 control them e.g. by way of hoarding. In view of the sel ers' market prevalent in India, it has bt en thought proper to make a provision of this nature. The deletion of the w >rds as suggested by the hon'ble Memb r might result SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA : It is very in circumvention of law. Therefore, I oppose selfish not to accept mine. this amcndm :nt. His second am- ndment No. 3 seeks total abolition of the proviso to clause 2(d) added by ine Joint Committee. This matter was c msidered by the Joint Committee which has observed as follows :— "The Commi tee feel that in arriving at the figures of total production of any goods o quantum of any services rendered, the data relating to I he production if goods and services of only those undertakings which are governed by th : Factories Act, 1948 should be taken into account and that goods producec by cottage industries and small-scale industries shall not be taken into acco ^nt." After this view of the Committee I think it will not be desirable for us to accept the amendment suggested by Shri Dahyabhai P.itel. By his third ar lendment, namely No. 4, he wants to add a proviso to subclause 2(d). Hi amendment says:— Now 1 will come to Mr. Bhupesh Gupta's amendment. His first amendment is to sub- "provided th.; share of each such clause 2(d). He wants to substitute the word undsrtaking is more than fifteen per cent." "one-sixth" by the word "one-third". In this He wants it to be added after the word connection 1 would like to point out that are "undertaking" appear at page 6, lines 31-32. have taken one-third share in the aggregate Thi effect of the amendment would be 1} production, supply or distribufion oi goods as exclude such of the inter-connected was recommended by the Monopolies undertakings from the definition of the \ ords Enquiry Commission. And I think this matter "dominant undertakings" whose j lare in was also gone into by the Joint Select aggregate production, supply ir distribution is Committee and I did not think it necessary to less than 15 per cent even though the total make changes suggested by the Monopolies production of a the inter-connected Enquiry Commission. I think sufficient undertakings tak n together would not be less grounds have not been provided by my than one-third. As such undertakings are work hon'ble friend to interfere with the re- ng in conjunction with other inter-connected commendations made by them as well as by undertakings, it is not desirable to c tclude the Joint Select Committee. Therefore, I am them howsoever insignificant theii own share not accepting this amendment. may be. Therefore, I am not accepting his Now, amendment No. 13. In place of the amendment. words "in India" he wants "in a State or Now I come t) Mr. Bhupesh Gupta's States" to be substituted. That will be very, amendment. very difficult because that will bring about discrimination throughout the country and SHRI BHUPE SH GUPTA : It is a perhaps will not be in the interest of areas very selfish view to accept your amendment which are backward regions so far as the and not to accept mine. development of industries is concerned. I think it is not necessary to accept the word "States" in place of "India". The Monopolies Enquiry Commission also 679 Monopolies and [RAJYA SABHA] Restrictive Trade 680 Practices Bill, 1967

[Shri Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed,] went into this question and did not consider that it should be done on the basis of States. They have suggested the whole country, THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The India. Therefore, I do not accept this question is : amendment also. 2. "That at page 6, line 13, the Now, so far as the amendment of Mr. words 'or otherwise controls' be Krishan Kant is concerned. .. deleted."

SHRI ARJUN ARORA : Please accept that The motion was negatived. one at least. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The question is : SHRI FAKHRUDDIN ALI AHMED : I cannot accept it because it is not in legal 3. "That at page 6, 'lines 16 to 26' terminology and it will create complications. be deleted." He is providing a larger chunk of shares in place of not less than 15 per cent. This is not The motion was negatived. in legal terminology. On the other hand, it will create difficulty and lead to complications and THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The defeat the very object we have provided here. question is : I hope he will not press his amendment. 4. "That at page 6, lines 31-32, after THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : Do the word 'undertaking' the words you press your amendments, Mr. Dahya-bhai 'provided the share of each such Patel? undertaking is more than fifteen per SHRI DAHYABHAI V. PATEL : cent.' be inserted." Yes, Madam. The motion was negatived. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : I THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The take up amendments Nos. 2 to 9 in the name of Mr. Dahyabhai Patel. question is : THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : All right. I 5. "That at page 7, lines 4 to 6 will take up one by one. You have taken too be deleted." The motion was negatived. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The question is :

6. "That at page 7, for lines 14 long to explain. Now do you want one by one to 18, the following be substituted, ? namely :— SHRI DAHYABHAI V. PATEL : 'Explanation VI.—For the purposes of this clause, production refers to the average of production made during the three calendar years immediately preceding preceding calendar year in which the question whether an undertaking is or is not a dominant undertaking is determined." The motion was negatived. I have no objection. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The question is :

7. "That at page 7, after line 18, THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : You the following be inserted, namely :— can object but the mover does not want them to be taken up one by one. 681 Monopol Is mi [23 JULY 1969] Restrictive Trade 682 Practices Bill, 19b7

'Explanation- VII.—For the pur- 14. "That at page 6, lines 13-14, poses of this clause, 'goods' shall also for the word 'one-third' the word be takn to include such goods from 'one-tenth' be substituted." other industries as serve a comnon end-use and a common cate ;ory of The motion was negatived. consumers." THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The The motion wa negatived. question is : THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The 15. "That at page 6, line 14, for question is : the words 'in India' the words 'in a State or States' be substituted." 8. "That at p tge 7, for lines 19 to 21. the followin! be substituted, name The motion was negatived. ly :- THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The '(e) 'goods includes goods pro- question is : duced, supplied or distributed in India, and si all also include for the 16. "That at page 6, line 27, for purposes of this Act, goods imported the word 'one-third' the word 'one- into India.'" sixth' be substituted." The motion wa.- negatived. THE DEPUTY The motion was negatived. CHAIRMAN : The question is : THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The 9. "That at page 9, for lines 2 to question is : 22, the following be substituted, namely :— 17. "That at page 6, line 42, for the word 'one-third' the word 'one- '(i) a dominant undertaking; or tenth' be substituted." (ii) an undertaking which by itself The motion was negatived. produce-, supplies or distributes not less than one-fifth of the goods THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The (including imported goods) of my question is : description but which jointly with two 18. "That at page 7, line 9, for the or more other producers of the same or words 'in India' the words 'in a similar type of goods produces, State or State' be substituted." supplies or distributes not less than three-fourths of such goods or The motion was negatived. provides or controls not less than three-fc Jrths of any services in India THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The or any substantial part thereof.'" question is : The motion wa I negatived. 19. "That at page 8, line 8, after the words 'group of persons' the THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The words 'either directly or indirectly question is : or through their nominees or agents' 12. "That at page 6, line 10, for be inserted." the word 'one-ihird' the word 'one- The motion was negatived. sixth' be substituted." THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The The motion was- negatived. question is : THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The 20. "That at page 9, line 6, for question is : the word 'one-half the word 'one- 13. "That at page 6, line 11, for fifth' be substitute^" the words 'in India' the words 'in a The motion was lf&atived. State or States' be substituted." The motion wot negatived. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The question is : THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The question is : 21. "That at page 9, lines 7-8, for the words 'in India' the words 'in a State or States' be substituted." The motion was negatived. 683 Monopolies and [RAJYA SABHA] Restrictive Trade 684 Practices Bill, 1967

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The question is : question is : 22. "That at page 9, line 10, for 25. "That at page 9, line 26, for the word the word 'one-half the woid one- 'one-half the word 'one-tenth' be tenth' be substituted." substituted." The motion was negatived. The motion was negatived. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : Amendment No. 34. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The question is : SHRI KRISHAN KANT: Madam, I beg 23. 'That at page 9— to withdraw it. 'Amendment No. 34 was, by leave, (i) at the end of line 11, after the withdrawn. word 'thereof the word 'or' be inserted; and THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The question is : (ii) after line 11, the following be inserted, namely :— "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill." The motion was adopted. '(c) all the undertakings which are controlled by the seventy-five Clause 2 was added to the Bill. business nouses mentioned in the Clause 3 Was added to the Bill. Monopoly Inquiry Commission's Report.' " THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The The motion was negatived. House stands adjourned till 11 A.M. tomorrow. The House then adjourned at THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The one minute past five of the clock question is : till eleven of the clock on Thursday, the 24th July, 1969.

24. "That at page 9, line 25, for *For text of amendment, vide col. 666 the word 'one-half the word 'one- fifth' be substituted." supra. The motion was negatived.

GIPN—S7—13 R. S./69—20-11-69-570.