Case Law Details
Tamarai Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Teesta Distributors (Competition Commission of India)
OP-1 to OP-4 offered minimum rates of Rs. 10,000 (per draw per scheme) as prescribed by the Central and State Lottery (Regulation) Rules. The Commission further notes that OP-1 had only bid for the paper lottery while OP-2, OP-3 and OP- 4 bid for the online lottery segments.
It is further observed from the records that the State Lottery Committee (SLC), in its meeting held on 18.05.2012, accepted the bids offered by OP-2, OP-3 and OP-4 for online lotteries for an initial period of two years or the period as determined by the Government of Mizoram from time to time. On 22.05.20 12, SLC invited OP-2, OP-3 and OP-4 to negotiate their bid amounts and succeeded in enhancing the bids to Rs. 10,500/- per draw and Rs. 400/- as administrative charges; on the very same day, OP-1 was contacted over the phone by a member of SLC to match the same bid amount in respect of paper lotteries. OP-1 agreed to match the revised amount. The Government approved the SLC recommendations on 23 .05.2012 and, in addition, the single bid for paper lottery of OP-1 was accepted. Accordingly, four bidders were selected and awarded six draws of lotteries per day. The Commission also notes that all four OPs (OP-1 to OP-4) had jointly signed a letter dated 23.05.20 12, wherein they had expressed their gratitude for having been selected as successful bidders.
Having considered the investigation report and the replies filed thereto by the contesting OPs, the Commission, at the outset, is of the opinion that the conclusions drawn by the DG are essentially based on identical quoting of bids by OP-1 to OP-4. This aspect stands explained from the replies furnished by these OPs as well as the response provided by OP-5, i.e., the Government of Mizoram. It seems that OP-1 to OP-4 quoted Rs. 10,000/- per draw, which was also the base price as per the extant There is no doubt that there did not appear to be any competitive bidding amongst the OPs, but such parallel conduct in itself cannot be equated with collusion so as to return a finding of bid rigging by the Commission in the absence of any plus factors or corroborative evidence, particularly when such benchmark was already available and known to all potential bidders.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
1. The present Information was filed by Tamarai Technologies Pvt. Ltd (‘the Informant’) under Section 19(l)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘the Act’) against Teesta Distributors (‘Opposite Party No 1’/‘OP-l’), N.V Interna ional (‘Opposite Party No. 2’/‘OP-2’), Ecool Gaming Solutions (‘Opposite Party No 3’ ‘OP-3’), Summit Online Trading Solutions Pvt. Ltd (‘Opposite Party No 4’/‘OP-4’) and Government of Mizoram through the Director, Institutional Finance and State Lottery (‘Opposite Party No. 5’/‘OP-5’) (‘the OP’s’) alleging, inter alia, contravention of the provision of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
2. Facts as stated in the Information may be briefly noted.
3. The Informant is stated to be a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and engaged in the business of marketing and selling paper and online lotteries across India, including the State of Mizoram. OP-1 to OP-4 are engaged in the similar and identical business of promoting, conducting and marketing State lotteries across India via online lotteries and paper lotteries, including bumper draws. OP-5 is the Government of Mizoram through the Director, Institutional Finance and State Lottery (IFSL), Aizwal, Mizoram.
4. As per the Information, the Government of Mizoram through the Director Institutional Finance and State Lotteries (IFSL) issued an Expression of Interest (EOI) dated 13.12.2010 to appoint lottery distributors/selling agents for paper and online lotteries of the State of Mizoram. However, this EOI dated 13.12.2010 was withdrawn. IFSL issued a fresh EOI dated 09.3.2011 inviting bids for conducting the lottery business of State of Mizoram for all kinds of paper and online lotteries. In the bid, 24 bidders, including OP-1 to OP-4 and their affiliates and associates A case was filed in the Gauhati High Court against the bidding process. Subsequently, the EOI dated 09.03.2011 was also withdrawn.
5. The Informant stated that, after withdrawal of EOI dated 09.03.2011, OP-5 invited bids for online and paper lotteries with bumper draws, against Expression of Interest (impugned EOI) dated 20.12.2011 for the appointment of lottery distributors and selling agents for the lotteries organised by the Government of Mizoram in terms of the Mizoram Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2011. Altogether, five bids were received from different firms/companies, out of which one bid which does not bear any address was rejected in the initial stage, whereas the other four bids (bids of OP-1 to OP-4) were found valid. Later, after negotiation, OP-2 to OP-4 were appointed as the online lottery selling agents, whereas OP-1 was appointed as an agent of paper lottery at the renegotiated rate of total Rs. 10,990/- per draw (which includes Rs. 10,500/- per draw plus Rs. 400 per draw as draw expenses).
6. The Informant alleged that, in terms of the aforesaid EOI (impugned) issued by OP-5, OP-1 to OP-4 bid identical rates (base prize rate) of Rs. 10,000/- per draw per scheme and colluded by entering into an agreement and formed a cartel in respect of sale/distribution of lottery business in the State of Mizoram. In support of this allegation, the Informant has filed a copy of the minutes of meeting held in the presence of OP-5, which showed the bidding of identical rate of Rs. 10,000/- per draw by OP-1 to OP-4. It was also submitted that the last date of submission of bids was originally 17.01.2012 but was extended for a month at the behest of OP-1 to OP- 4.
7. The Commission considered the Information and material available on record and, vide its order dated 29.05.2012, prima facie opined that the facts projected in the Information indicated the existence of a cartel amongst OP-1 to OP-4. Accordingly, noting contravention of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act read with Section 3(3) thereof, the Commission directed the Director General (‘the DG’) to caui an investigation into the matter. However, no case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act was noted. It was further observed that the role of OP-5 (State of Mizoram) is to regulate and monitor the business of lotteries in the State of Mizoram in discharge of its power and functions, as envisaged under the Lotteries (Regulation) Act and the Mizoram Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010. As such, OP-5 was not considered an ‘enterprise’ or ‘group’ in terms of the provisions of the Act as it was not engaged in any commercial or economic activity.
Investigation by the DG
8. To examine the allegations, the DG collected relevant information from the OPs, the Informant, OP-5 and third parties so as to assess the process of tendering and the conduct of the OPs in this case.
9. The DG investigated the matter to ascertain whether quoting of identical base price by OPs in respect of the EOI dated 20.02.2011 was a result of collusion amongst OPs and whether there were any direct or indirect evidences in support of an agreement, formal or informal, between the OPs for bid rigging in violation of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act.
10. In this regard, the DG returned the following findings:
(i) The reason for identical bids from all parties (OP-1 to OP-4) coming from different parts of the country could not be satisfactorily explained by them.
(ii) The examination of the original bid documents submitted by OP-5 showed that the base price of Rs.10,000/- (in words, ‘ten thousand only’) written on bid documents appeared to have been written by the same person in respect of two bidders, namely, OP-1 and OP-4. OP-2 was found to have modified the initial quoted price in the bid document to Rs. 10,000/-, i.e., the base price, by applying white fluid.
(iii) OP-1 and OP-2 are indirectly associated with each other and both of them had made Future Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd. their sub-stockiest.
(iv) OP-3 had carried the blank bid document to Aizawl under the signature of one of the Directors of the company, and the bid document was filled at the last moment by quoting a price of Rs.10,000/-.
11. Accordingly, the DG concluded that all four OPs (OP-1 to OP-4) were engaged in prior consultation regarding the base price and renegotiated the prices of bid to acquire equal share of award as selling agents of lottery tickets of the Government of Mizoram and hence, violated the provisions of Sections 3(3)(a), 3(3)(b) and 3(3)(d) of the Act.
12. The Commission, after considering the investigation report of the DG in its ordinary meeting held on 12.02.2013, vide its order of even date, decided to forward a copy thereof to the parties for filing their reply/objections. The matter was directed to be listed for final hearing on 20.03.2013.
13. On 20.03.2013, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of OP-5, i.e., Government of Mizoram, informed that they have filed W.P. (C) No24 of 2013 before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court at Aizawl Bench challenging, inter alia, the order dated 29.05.2012 passed under Section 26(1) of the Act directing investigation. The Hon’ble High Court, vide its final order dated 16.08 2014, set aside the order dated 29.05.2012 passed by the Commission. The Commission preferred special leave petition there against before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which came to be allowed vide its order dated 19.01.2022, with the following observations:
“……43. We, thusset aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and direct that the proceedings in WP(C) No. 24/2013 filed by respondent No.1 would stand closed in view of the statement made on behalf of the CCI before the High Court on 11.06.2013 and the proceedings against the other parties would continue. Since the State Government has already volunteered in the present proceedings to cooperate, we are sure a proper sequitur to the investigation would follow. WP(C) No. 76/2013 and WP(C) No. 90/2013 filed by the private parties would stand dismissed. We are conscious of the fact that much time has passed but then the material forming basis of the investigation is already with the CCI and it will have to proceed in accordance with law. This will have a future 30 impact even if the contracts have come to an end and also in the context of the jurisdiction of the CCI, and that is why we have proceeded to pen down the judgment….”
14. Accordingly, the Commission considered the matter in its ordinary meeting held on 08.03 .2022 and directed to list the same on 10.05.2022 for final hearing. OPs 1–4 were directed to appear before the Commission on the said date and make submissions on the investigation report. On 10.05.2022, at the request of OP-1, the matter was adjourned to 03.06.2022, when the learned counsel(s) appearing on behalf of Informant, OP-1, OP-2 and OP-4 made their respective None appeared on behalf of OP-3. In fact, the learned counsel representing OP-3, vide its letter dated 21.05.2022, intimated the Commission that he would not be continuing with the legal representation of OP-3 and has, accordingly, sought to withdraw vakalatnama.
Objections/Suggestions of Informant
15. The Informant agreed with the assessment of the DG and, as such, supported the findings recorded by the DG in the Investigation Report. It further submitted that OPs have indulged in bid-rigging/collusive bidding by submitting identical bids at the base price. It was averred that OPs had a pre-arranged meeting of minds, which is supported by the fact that OPs (OP-1 to OP-4) and other market players never quoted identical prices in any of the earlier tenders floated by OP-5.
16. The Informant has also relied on the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG Report), which covered the results of the performance audit of Mizoram State Lotteries during the period 2010–15, where the CAG Report found that several ambiguities existed in the concerned EOI, and the alleged non-clarification by OP-5 led to minimal participation which, in turn, deprived the State of Mizoram of the benefit of a better-quoted price and caused severe loss to the public exchequer.
Objections/Suggestions of OP-1
17. OP-1 submitted that the DG has failed to take into consideration the fact that, in terms of Rule 3(9) of the 2010 Rules as also as prescribed in the Mizoram Rules, 2011, the minimum bid that could be quoted in a tender was Rs. 10,000/- per draw. It is further submitted that the DG has not appreciated the fact that OP-1 could not have amassed the entire 100% of the allotments/market inasmuch as it did not cater to online lotteries and, in fact, did not have the relevant infrastructure to delve into the same.
18. OP-1 stated that it is not operating within the same field as other OPs, which is evident from the fact that it had bid and had been granted the tender in respect of paper lotteries only. Further, on the issue of the common relationship between OP-1 and OP-2, it submitted that sharing of a common sub-stockist is a commercial decision, and on account of the absence of any allegation that the said common sub-stockist either facilitated or was involved in the alleged process of cartelisation or bid rigging, the same is of no relevance. On the CAG Report, OP-1 submitted that the Informant has sought to rely extensively on the CAG Report, which did not find a mention in the Information itself nor in the report of the DG.
Objections/Suggestions of OP-2
19. OP-2, in its submissions, at the outset, submitted that the allegation of bid rigging against OP-2 is without any basis and the DG has ignored the fact that, in light of the settlement with the Government of Mizoram, the rates quoted by OP-2 were wholly immaterial, as 25% of the draws would necessarily be allotted to it as per the arbitration award, whereby OP-2 was guaranteed that a minimum of six draws per day will be reserved for it in order to compensate the loss incurred by it in 1996.
20. It was submitted that the DG has failed to appreciate the difference in the bid made by OP-2, whereby bid submitted by it substantially differed from the bids submitted by other OPs in light of the fact that it has not only made the bid of Rs. 10,000/- but has also given a minimum guarantee of Rs. 36,20,000 /-.
21. With respect to the CAG Report, it was stated that the Report was neither a part of the investigation conducted by the DG, nor were the Opposite Parties ever given an opportunity to respond to the said report. It was, therefore, submitted that the CAG Report sought to be relied upon by the Informant cannot be looked into at this stage. Even otherwise, the CAG Report is merely a document prepared by CAG to assist the Government of Mizoram to enhance the lottery business in the State and is merely in the nature of recommendations and therefore, cannot be read against the Opposite Parties.
Objections/Suggestions of OP-3
22. OP-3, in its reply dated 01.04.2013 on the Investigation Report, has submitted that the DG completely ignored the fact that the bid submitted by OP-3 was different from the bid submitted by other OPs, as the bid submitted by OP-3 was Rs. 10,000/- or 1% of gross sale, whichever is On the other hand, other OPs submitted bids such as “Rs10,000/- per draw for online lottery” or “Rs 10,000/- per draw per scheme”. Thus, the conclusion that the bid was made in collusion with the other OPs is wrong and without basis.
23. OP-3 further submitted that the DG Report fails to consider the drastic developments affecting the lottery business environment between the EOI dated 09.03.2011 and EOI dated 20.12.2011. As a result of the imposition and subsequent enhancement of the betting tax, the sale of lottery tickets within the State of West Bengal became unviable. Therefore, for commercial considerations, distributors of lotteries shut down their business in the State of West Bengal. Further, lotteries of the State of Punjab and State of Sikkim are more popular and command a much higher reputation than that of the State of Mizoram. Additionally, the Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010, which were notified by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, on 01.04.2010, imposed a restriction on the number of lottery draws that could take place in a day. Therefore, these reasons have collectively restricted the market for the lotteries of the State of Mizoram and made the lottery business commercially unviable. Hence, it was contended that submitting much higher bids, as was done in response to the EOI dated 03.2011, was not prudent or viable.
24. OP-3 has also submitted that it is a common practice amongst all Government departments that, post tender, negotiations are held with successful bidders for further discounts/concessions. Since the State Government insisted and was able to increase the rate per draw per Scheme, OP-3 along with other bidders wrote a letter conveying the acceptance of the negotiated prices.
25. Lastly, OP-3 submitted that the Informant has made the allegation of bid rigging for mala fide purposes to ensure that the agreements pursuant to the EOI dated 20.12.2011 are cancelled, since the Informant could not derive any benefit from the EOI dated 20.12.2011 as it abstained from participating in the bidding process.
Objections/Suggestions of OP-4
26. OP-4 submitted that, in earlier tenders, as many as 24 bidders had submitted bids for conducting lottery business in the State of Mizoram. However, many of them did not even participate in the impugned bid due to high rate of lottery tax in the State of West Bengal and the State of Punjab, which, with other factors, made the lottery business unattractive. It also emphasised that the tender conditions stated that even the highest bid could be rejected, as the Government is not bound to accept the highest rate or bid offered by any party unless it is found to be acceptable on all respects. Therefore, the lowest price is not sacrosanct.
27. OP-4 also submitted that the significant distinction of submitting bids for paper lottery and online lottery has not been considered by the DG and also submitted that the allegation that bid documents of OP-1 and OP-4 appear to have been written/filled in by the one or the same person is baseless and liable to be rejected. The aforesaid allegation by the DG is not based on any concrete evidence to showcase any agreement between the parties.
28. It was also submitted that the sole object of permitting lotteries in India is to help States earn Before the present licences, the Government of Mizoram appointed sole selling agent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per draw and another agent was paying only Rs. 110/- per draw, and the Government was earning was only Rs. 2–3 crores per annum through various agents, whereas after promulgation of Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010 under which the present EOI was finalised, the earnings of the Government increased to more than Rs. 10 crore per annum. As such, there is no question of any loss to the State exchequer.
Objections/Suggestions of OP-5
29. OP-5, in its reply dated 15.04.2013, submitted that the invitation of impugned EOI had been notified strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Mizoram Lotteries (Regulation) Rules 2011 in the interest of the revenue earning of the State. The said invitation for EOI was also floated through the State’s common website and departmental website on 20.12.2011 and thereafter, also through print and electronic media on 13.01.2012, as the said bid was postponed for one month due to technical reasons.
30. It further submitted that the reasons for the decreasing number of bids along with offer of the lower rates against the sale proceeds in response to the impugned EOI is beyond the control of the Government. It is also stated that all bid documents received were duly scrutinised as per the terms and conditions of the EOI and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the State Lottery (Regulation) Rules 2011 and found acceptable and, as such, the question of whether there was a cartel between OPs 1–4 for the purpose of likely causing an appreciable adverse effect on the competition did not arise. The four bidders offered minimum rates as prescribed by the Central and State Lottery (Regulation) Rules, and, as such, there was no point on the part of the Government to construe cartelisation and/or combination, as the bid documents were acceptable under the said rules and provisions and, as such, it was not possible for the Government of Mizoram to conclude that there had been any case of bid rigging or collusive bidding.
31. In addition, OP-5 submitted that the Informant did not participate in the bidding process, which strictly followed the Lottery (Regulation) Act 1998 and the State Lottery (Regulation) Rules, 2011, and instead, at a belated stage after the commencement of the lottery business in the State of Mizoram, it preferred to file a completely misleading complaint with an ulterior motive along with a sole aim and object to destabilise the entire lottery business of Mizoram, which is one of the major sources of revenue earning of the State. If the Informant had any grievance with regard to the impugned EOI, the same should have been challenged at the relevant time, even before the decision by the State Lottery Committee and signing of the agreement.
Analysis
32. The Commission has perused the Information, Investigation Report and the objections/suggestions thereto filed by the parties, as well as written and oral submissions filed/submitted by the parties.
33. At the outset, the Commission notes that the issue arising in the present case relates to the expression of interest dated 20.12.2011 for appointment of lottery distributors and selling agents for lotteries organised by the Government of Mizoram in terms of the Mizoram Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2011.
34. Based on investigation and evidence gathered, the DG concluded that four OPs (OP-1 to OP-4) were engaged in prior consultation regarding the base price and renegotiated the prices of the bid to acquire equal share of award as the selling agent of lottery tickets of the Government of Mizoram, hence violating the provisions of Sections 3(3) (a), 3(3)(b) and 3(3)(d) of the Act.
35. From the investigation report and the replies of OP thereon, and after examining the submissions made by the parties and other material available on record, the Commission notes that the impugned EOI dated was floated by OP-5, where only five bids were received for the concerned EOI. One bid was not addressed to the Directorate and hence, was rejected. OP-1 to OP-4 offered minimum rates of Rs. 10,000 (per draw per scheme) as prescribed by the Central and State Lottery (Regulation) Rules. The Commission further notes that OP-1 had only bid for the paper lottery while OP-2, OP-3 and OP- 4 bid for the online lottery segments.
36. It is further observed from the records that the State Lottery Committee (SLC), in its meeting held on 18.05.2012, accepted the bids offered by OP-2, OP-3 and OP-4 for online lotteries for an initial period of two years or the period as determined by the Government of Mizoram from time to time. On 22.05.20 12, SLC invited OP-2, OP-3 and OP-4 to negotiate their bid amounts and succeeded in enhancing the bids to Rs. 10,500/- per draw and Rs. 400/- as administrative charges; on the very same day, OP-1 was contacted over the phone by a member of SLC to match the same bid amount in respect of paper lotteries. OP-1 agreed to match the revised amount. The Government approved the SLC recommendations on 23 .05.2012 and, in addition, the single bid for paper lottery of OP-1 was accepted. Accordingly, four bidders were selected and awarded six draws of lotteries per day. The Commission also notes that all four OPs (OP-1 to OP-4) had jointly signed a letter dated 23.05.20 12, wherein they had expressed their gratitude for having been selected as successful bidders.
37. Having considered the investigation report and the replies filed thereto by the contesting OPs, the Commission, at the outset, is of the opinion that the conclusions drawn by the DG are essentially based on identical quoting of bids by OP-1 to OP-4. This aspect stands explained from the replies furnished by these OPs as well as the response provided by OP-5, i.e., the Government of Mizoram. It seems that OP-1 to OP-4 quoted Rs. 10,000/- per draw, which was also the base price as per the extant There is no doubt that there did not appear to be any competitive bidding amongst the OPs, but such parallel conduct in itself cannot be equated with collusion so as to return a finding of bid rigging by the Commission in the absence of any plus factors or corroborative evidence, particularly when such benchmark was already available and known to all potential bidders.
38. The investigation has not brought any cogent evidence on record to demonstrate prior concert or consultation amongst OP-1 to OP-4 to quote the statutorily prescribed minimum amount. It is further relevant to note that the Government of Mizoram thereafter negotiated the bid amounts and succeeded in enhancing the bids to Rs. 10,500/- per draw and Rs. 400/- as administrative charges. It also cannot be ignored that OP-1 submitted its bid for weekly as well as bumper lottery segment of paper lottery, whereas OP-2, OP-3 and OP-4 submitted their bids for online weekly lotteries only. Further, online and paper lotteries are different products in terms of volume of lottery, prize structure, investment in infrastructure and consumer preferences.
39. The DG in the Investigation Report noted the “acts” and “agreements” of all four bidder OPs as being to the prejudice of public interest by unduly restricting participation in impugned EOI. However, the Investigation Report did not bring out any evidence in this regard. In fact, there did not appear to be any entry barriers of any nature whatsoever, which could have restricted the participation of such other bidders. The Commission notes from the replies furnished by the OPs that there could have been diverse reasons for such lack of interest, such as increase in taxes levied by the States, limiting the number of lottery draws in a day etc. In these circumstances, the finding of the DG that the OPs restricted competition in the bidding process does not seem to emanate out of any rational basis.
40. The DG in its report has also pointed out a relationship between OP-1 and OP-2 that they are indirectly associated with each other and both of them had made Future Gaming Solutions Pvt. as their sub-stockist, which provided the fund for FDR of Rs. 5 crores to OP-2 during 2009–12. In this regard, the Commission find merits in the submission made by OP-2 that appointing a stockist is a commercial decision and it runs the lottery business as an intermediary between the Government and the sale operator. OP-2 also submitted that its business model is not to sell directly in the market but through a stockist or a distributor and, as part of the said business model, it took security from such distributor. In support of the aforesaid, it has filed a compilation of the agreements with various other stockists/sub-agents as well.
41. As regards the relationship between OP-1 and OP-2, it is unnecessary to dilate any further on this aspect as the Commission on a number of occasions has found even formal associations immaterial in the absence of any evidence exhibiting collusion. The Commission, in In Re: Ved Prakash Tripathi v Director General Armed Forces Medical Services & Ors. (Case No. 10 of 2020), had held that: “…mere commonality of directors or ownership of participating firms, in itself, is not sufficient to record any prima facie conclusion about bid rigging in the absence of any material indicating collusion amongst such bidders while participating in the impugned tender…. Similarly, the circumstance that OP-9 and OP-10 are located in the same area, in itself is of no consequence in the absence of other material establishing concerted behaviour.” Further, in In Re: Reprographics India v. Hitachi Systems Micro Clinic Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Case No. 41 of 2018), the Commission held that: “…merely having common business linkages between the OPs as projected by the Informant, cannot be the basis to suggest collusion in the bidding process. Moreover, there is no material on record to suggest that the OPs were engaged in Bid Rotation etc. Therefore, the allegation of supportive bid does not find favour with the Commission…”
42. Lastly, the Commission notes that it is a common practice that negotiations are held by the procurer with the successful bidders for further discounts/concessions. The same were also held in the present case, on 22.05.2012, whereby the Government of Mizoram negotiated the bid amounts and succeeded in enhancing the bids. Thereafter, a letter dated 23.05.20 12 conveying the acceptance of the negotiated price was signed by the representatives of OP-1 to OP-4 and was sent to the Director, ILFS, OP-5. In the facts of the present case, nothing turns upon this letter wherefrom any concert amongst OP-1 to OP-4 can be deciphered.
43. In view of the above, the Commission is of the view that there is not sufficient material on record to substantiate the allegations and show contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. Resultantly, no case is made out against OP-1 to OP-4 for contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, and the Information is ordered to be closed forthwith.
44. The Secretary is directed to communicate to the Parties accordingly.
