Restrictive trade practice jurisdiction depends on competition; without competing parties, the complaint was not maintainable.

Under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, the Commission's jurisdiction under section 10 depended on a restrictive trade practice within section 2(o), which required a trade practice having the actual or probable effect of preventing, distorting or restricting competition. Competition was a jurisdictional fact to be assessed in a commercial sense, and the complaint did not allege any competition between the State and another party. The deeming provision inserted by the 1984 amendment to section 33(1) applied only to specified categories of agreements and did not extend to the complaint. The Commission therefore lacked jurisdiction, and the complaint was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint relating to an irrigation programme, and whether a restrictive trade practice could be made out in the absence of any element of competition.

Analysis: Jurisdiction of the Commission under section 10 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 depended upon the existence of a restrictive trade practice within section 2(o). The definition required not merely a trade practice, but one having the effect, actual or probable, of preventing, distorting or restricting competition. The presence of competition was a jurisdictional fact, to be understood in a commercial sense. The complaint did not allege any competition between the State and any other party. The deeming provision introduced by the 1984 amendment to section 33(1) applied only to the specified categories of agreements and did not assist the complaint, which was outside that category.

Conclusion: The Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and the complaint was not maintainable.

---