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.