Tamil Nadu National Law University, Competition Law, 2019

BEFORE
HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF KRATOS

Special Leave Appeal filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of Kratos and appeal filed
under Sec. 53T of Kratonian Competition Act, 2002

SLP(C) NO. ___/2019

MADRASAPATNAM TRADERS UNION (MTU) AND ANR...................APPELLANTS

V.

1. UNION OF INDIA
2. BRAHMAPUTRA PVT. LTD.
3. PREMIER PVT. LTD.
4. MONEYKART LLP
5. CHAPO PVT. LTD.
6. MAHJONG LTD..............................................................................................RESPONDENTS

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF KRATOS UNDER THE INHERENT POWER

CLUBBED THE APPEALS TOGETHER UNDER ORDER “LV”, RULE 5 OF THE
SUPREME COURT RULES 2013

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………………………..3

LIST OF ABBREVATION……………………………………………………………………………………6

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..............................................................................................................................7

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE

MADARASAPATINAM TRADERS UNION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF KRATOS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
1.1 The Rights of the traders have not been violated
1.2 The activities of the e-commerce companies was not driving the traders out of the
market
1.3 Alternate remedies have not been exhausted.

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. STATUES

The Competition Act, 2002

The Constitution of India, 1950

B. TREATIES

Treat on the functioning of the European Union

C.CASES
1. A.V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani and Ors. [1961] SCC 158
2. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib [1981] 1 SCC 722
3. All India Online Vendors Association v Flipkart India Private Limited and Anr. Case No.
20 of 2018(CCI)
4. Allison A.M. v. B.L. Sen [1957] SCR 359
5. Babloo Chauhan @ Dabloo v State Govt. of NCT of Delhi 247 (2018) DLT 31.
6. Balwant Rai Chimanlan Trivedi v. M.N. Nagrashna [1960] ;
7. Board of Trusties , Court of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar Nadkarni [1983]1 SCC 124
8. British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh Additional Commissioner of
Customs, AIR 1964 SC 1451: 1984 ECR 487 (SC).
9. Brooke Group Ltd v Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation 509 US 209 (1993).
10. Chameli Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 1051
11. Competition act, 2002, s 4(2) (a) (ii).
12. Delhi Development Horticulutre Employees’ Union v Delhi Administration AIR 1992 SC
789
13. Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress [1991] 1 Supp 600 ;
14. Dinesh Bulakhi Harijan v The State 2009 CriLJ 114.
15. Dish TV v Prasar Bharti Case No. 44 of 2010(CCI)

3
16. E-Commerce Share Of Total Retail Sales By Country 2017' (Statista, 2018) accessed 23
February 2019.
17. Hans Raj Kheher v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1975] 1 SCC 40;
18. In Re: Mr. Mohit Manglani v M/s Flipkart India Private Limited & Ors. Case No. 80 of
2014(CCI).
19. Jasper Infotech v Kaff Appliances 2019 Indlaw CCI 1
20. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Laxmichand, AIR 1963 SC 677.”
21. Khatki Ahmed Mushabhai v. Limdi Municipality [1979] 1SCC 248
22. Kochuni K.K. v State of Madras 1960 AIR SC 1080.
23. M CX Stock Exchange Ltd. vs. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. [2011]
Manu/CO/0032/2011 (CCI)
24. M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395;
25. Madan Mohan Rao M. v. Union of India [2002] 6 SCC 348
26. Mahesh Kumar Joshi v. Madan Singh Negi, (2015) 12 SCC 254.
27. Neeraj Malhotra v North Delhi Power Ltd. (2011) 3 SCC 436
28. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipals Corporation [1985] 3 SCC 545 ;
29. Onkarlal Nandlal v. State of Rajasthan, (1985) 4 SCC 404.
30. P.D. Shamdasani v Central Bank Of India 1952 AIR 59
31. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology [2002] 5 SCC 111
32. Ram Barai Singh v State of Bihar, (2015) 13 SCC 592, Para 11.”
33. Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana [1950] 1 SCR566
34. S.K. Mukherjee v Chemical Allied Products AIR 1962 Cal 10
35. Sadhu Singh Harnam Singh v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1954 SC 271.
36. Sanwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715.
37. Sodhan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation [1989 ] 4 SCC 155
38. State of Punjab v Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334;
39. Taherakhatoon v. Salambin Mohammad [1999] 2 SCC 635
40. Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 1993 AIR 217
41. Zee Telefilms Ltd v Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649The Executive Engineer (State of
Karnataka) v K. Somasetty & Ors (1997) 5 SCC 434
42. Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India [2005] 4 SCC 649

4
 D. LEGAL DATABASES

1) HEINONLINE
2) TAXMANN
3) WESTLAW
4) MANUPATRA
5) SCC ONLINE

E. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND INTERPRETAION

1) Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India (edn 9, LexisNexis).

2) Justice GP Singh, Interpretation of Statutes, (11th edn, LexisNexis).
3) M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th edn, LexisNexis).
4) Arvind P Datar, Commentary on the Constitution of India (2nd edn,LexisNexis2010) 853.
5) Sujit Choudhry , Madhav Khosla and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, The Oxford Handbook of Indian
Constitution, ( South Asia Edition, 1st edn, OUP 2017).

5
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& AND
§ Section
§§ Sections
¶ Paragraph
¶¶ Paragraphs
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Assn. Association
CA. Competition Act
CCK Competition Commission of Kratos
Comp At. Competition Appellate Tribunal
Comp. LR. Competition Law Review
DG Director General
Ed. Edition
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
Ltd. Limited
MANU Manupatra
NCLAT National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
No. Number
Ors. Others
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCK Supreme Court of Kratos
MTU Madrasapatnam Traders Union
UOI Union of India
US United Sates
v. Versus
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE

MADARASAPATINAM TRADERS UNION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF KRATOS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is a humble submission by the counsel for the respondents that the present case is not
maintainable before the Supreme Court under Article 136 and also submits that there is no

6
breach of fundamental rights of the petitioners and also highlights the fact that there is existence
of alternate remedies that are supposed to be exhausted first.

The High Court of Madraspatnam had passed an order where it had clearly stated that the issue
that had been brought before the court was an issue that is to be dealt with by a forum that is
appropriate to hear the dispute or the issue and since there exists a statute that deals with these
issues which clearly state that when such matter arise, the matter is to be taken before the forum
that has been established for the purpose of dealing with such issues and when there is the
existence of such forums, then it is appropriate to go before such forums and not before the high
court. When there is a statute that provides for various remedies, then these remedies are to be
considered and exhausted first and only after that can the person go for further appeal.1

It is also submitted that over and above the constitutional provisions regulating to the Supreme
Court's appellate jurisdiction, Article 136(1) empowers the Supreme Court to grant Special
Leave to appeal and states:

"Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of
Kratos."”

As it can be seen in the provision, initially the power that was conferred to the Supreme COurt in
this regard was a lot but then there started arising certain restrictions which would in a way bring
consistency and certainty in the law and it was in the case of Pritam Singh v. The State2 where
the Supreme Court had brought more clarity into the power of the Supreme Court and also when
Supreme Court will grant special leave. It stated that special leave would be granted under
Article 136(1) of the Constitution only if it is shown to the court that there is in fact existence of
certain circumstances that are special or out of the ordinary and therefore there is need for clarity
in that particular matter or in case where there is grave injustice happening where the
fundamental rights of the person is affected or the fundamental rights of many people are
1
Arvind P Datar, Commentary on the Constitution of India (2nd edn, LexisNexis 2010) 861
2
AIR 1950 SC 169.

7
affected or in cases where there is existence of certain issues that make it necessary to review the
decision that has been passed. The Supreme Court has gone ahead and clarified the position even
further by stating that when it come to exercising the discretion to accept a case under Article
136, there needs to be certain out of the ordinary circumstances and therefore the court needs to
determine whether to accept the case or not based on the facts of the case. When justice has not
been rendered properly, then the Supreme Court can exercise its discretion and accept the case.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the Supreme Court under Article 136 has the discretion to
decide which case to accept and which case not to and this discretion is based on factors such as
special or extraordinary circumstances or circumstances where there has been grave injustice
involved and in each case, the facts of the case are looked into and then determination is made if
justice has been rendered and if not, then also Supreme Court can allow the case.

1.1 THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS NOT VIOLATED

The Counsel for the respondents submits that the Article 12 of the Constitution does not apply on
companies that are not owned by the state and in the landmark case of Ajay Hasia, 3 the court had
laid down certain test that is for checking whether a company can be considered as an
instrumentality or an agency of the government. A body would not be considered a state if the
control that the government has over such body is merely regulatory and since the respondent
companies are not considered state or do not fall under the control of the government, it can be

3
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib [1981] 1 SCC 722

8
stated that there is no violation of fundamental right and therefore the claim made under Article
19(1)(g) and Article 21 cannot be considered.

One aspect of competition that needs to be understood is that everyone is trying to do something
that gives them an advantage over its competitors and this is something that is common when it
comes to buying and selling of products and if some company or party starts incurring losses
because of certain technique or technological advance that has been made by some competitor,
then this cannot be said to be violating the fundamental right of the person affected as this is the
very nature of competing where every person who is involved in the business tries to do
something that gives them an edge over its competitors. When a person has been granted the
permission to do certain business, that person cannot expect his competitors to not take steps that
would give them an advantage and therefore increase their sales and profit.

The courts have given wide interpretation to the word state where it has stated that when the
functions that are performed by the body or the institution are the functions of the state, then this
body or institution will be considered a state and the fact that such body is created by the
legislature or not does not matter and only if it is a state can the fundamental right be enforced
against it.

It is a must that the body or institution is an instrumentality of state which means that the body or
institution performs an essential public function and only if this is fulfilled can it come under the
definition of state. When we look at the case in hand, it can be seen clearly that the respondent
companies do not perform any public function nor do they have any statutory power which
therefore brings us to the point that fundamental rights cannot be enforced against these
companies.

When it comes to ecommerce, what needs to be understood is that there can be no adverse effect
created in the market as ecommerce forms a small part of the market and when it comes to
determination of whether an adverse effect is created, first look is taken at the market share that
is held by the company that is supposedly affecting the market in an adverse way. When we look
at the case at hand, it can be clearly seen that none of the companies had sufficient market share
because of which they would have a great advantage over its competitors. The market structure
that is in existence currently does not really allow anyone to be in a position of dominance as

9
there is the existence of several products and each product has a substitute which is equally good
and therefore does not allow any ecommerce company to really adversely affect the market and
so the respondents cannot be asked to stop providing discounts as this is one of the ways to
attract customers and increase sales and profit.

When a company puts certain discount which is to adjust with the price of the its competitors,
then the law states that this is allowed and there is no restriction on the discount provided as it is
a measure taken by the company to survive in the market. Restrictions however can be imposed
in situations where the price that has been set is too low which therefore makes it very tough for
the competitors to match and it also affects the consumers in an adverse way. “Imposition of
minimum resale price is per se illegal.”4

In order to prove that there has been certain infringement which therefore led to the mishap,
there must be clear and conclusive evidence to support the same and if there is lack of evidence
to support the claim, then the courts are to consider that the step that is taken by the company is
for the betterment and development of the company and it is indulging in sale of products just
like any other company in the market.

“Article 21 provides for protection of livelihood and does not impose any positive obligation on
state to provide livelihood to such people who have lost the same as a result of lawful conduct of
some other party.”5

The steps taken by the respondents in the current case are steps that the company deemed to be
appropriate and beneficial for its growth and development and the steps taken abide by the law
and in no way are they affecting the market in an adverse way and therefore there is no violation
of fundamental rights as claimed by the petitioners.

4
Competition act, 2002, s 3(4) (e).
5
Delhi Development Horticulutre Employees’ Union v Delhi Administration AIR 1992 SC 789

10
 1.2 THE ACTIVITIES OF THE E-COMMERCE COMPANIES WAS NOT DRIVING
THE TRADERS OUT OF THE MARKET

When the matter or issue comes to the setting or determination of price of products, what needs
to be seen is that it is not some exceptional or special circumstance and the only reason why
prices of products has come into light is because of the news channels where they highlight the
fact that the prices of products that are sold online has gone down which therefore causes the
small traders to leave the market as continuation would only expand its loses. The complaint
over this issue was filed by Ganga Pvt. Ltd. & Origami Pvt. Ltd which was then followed by the
investigation into the matter by the DG. After completion of the investigation, the report was
submitted to the Competition Commission of Kratos where the DG had stated based on its
findings that there was absence of cartelisation between the five companies and this is a fact that
has also been approved and upheld by the NCLAT which had clearly stated that there needs to be
presence of direct compelling evidence to support the claim of cartelisation and in the absence of

11
evidence, the case has to be dropped. When there is a claim that there is existence of cartelisation
and there is no evidence to back it up, then plea is rejected.6

NCLAT has clearly stated that when companies are selling their products at the same price as
their competitor, it cannot be said that therefore there exists some form of cartelisation. The
reason for the similar prices of the products is the competition that exists in the market and the
consumer always wants quality product for cheap prices and if a competitor has reduced price of
the product, then it becomes a necessity to reduce your own prices because this is the only way
to survive in the market/

The Supreme Court in Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee held that “Article 21 is
not attracted in a case of trade or business-either big or small. The right to carry on any trade
or business and the concept of life and personal liberty within Article 21 are too remote to be
connected together.”7 The case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation8 heavily relied
upon by the petitioners but that case cannot be applied here because the facts of that case
different from this case. In that case, the petitioner became a street hawker because of the
problem of lack of money but when we look at the facts of this case, the petitioners are retailers
and wholesalers who have trade associations that are in existence to back them up. There is
absence of injustice in this case as there has been no prima facie violation of Art 19(1)(g) and
also there is no violation of Article 21 and therefore there is nothing in this regard that can be
used by the petitioner to support their filing of writ petition before the High Court.

Ecommerce today is an industry that has grown a lot and there is existence of high competition
due to its ease of access and convenience and various other factors. When we look at retail
market, what can be understood is the fact that the prices of products sold by retail markets is
different in different areas as there is involvement of various factors such as the place where the
retail shop is located and various other factors which have been stated under section Section
19(6)9 of the Competition Act, 2002 which states about relevant geographic market. The prices
6
Arushi Exports v Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, ( 2014) 299 ELT 71.
7
Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1989) 4 SCC 155.
8
AIR 1986 SC 180.
9
“ Section 19 (6)- The Commission shall, while determining the “relevant geographic market”, have due regard to
all or any of the following factors, namely: —
(a) regulatory trade barriers;
(b) local specification requirements;
(c) national procurement policies;

12
of products are usually much higher at places that are in remote locations because of the fact that
there is difficulty in making products available at such places because of lack of many suppliers
and various other factors. On the other hand, when we look at purchase made online, the prices
are consistent to every person in any corner of the country and there are times when consumers
have to pay more and that is because of the delivery charges and it also depends on how much
the companies decide to charge and also the geographical location but the point that needs to be
understood is that the price of the product is constant for every consumer. As it can be seen, this
makes it convenient, economical and easy to access for the consumer which therefore makes
them prefer ecommerce over retailers.

1.3 NON EXHAUSTION OF ALTERNATE REMEDIES

It is the contention of the respondents that the High Court has properly applied the maxim of
'forum non conveniens’ and the reason for this being is the fact that there are more appropriate
forum or legal remedies available that can be invoked. This point has been stated in the case of
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, 10 where the court stated that when there is existence of sufficient legal
remedies, then these legal remedies are to be considered over the matter of granting writs. This position
has been well- settled by the courts where they have stated that when there availability of ways that have
that have the same outcome, then the outcome that does not involve invoking the special jurisdiction of
the High Court to issue prerogative writs, is to be taken. The courts have also clarified on the fact that the
High Court cannot grant special leave for reasons such as adverse usage of discretionary power where
there is no illegality or there is no unreasonable restriction placed on the persons fundamental right.

The contention of the respondent therefore is that the present Special Leave Petition filed by the
MTU is not maintainable.”

(d) adequate distribution facilities;

(e) transport costs;
(f) language;
(g) consumer preferences;
(h) need for secure or regular supplies or rapid after-sales services.
10
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana [1950] 1 SCR566

13
 It is the contention of The Madrasapatnam Traders Union that their fundamental right to trade has
been violated and the main reason for this is the agreement that has been entered into between
the producer and the e-commerce industry and for this reason he has filed the writ petition. They
have stated the fact that when it comes to wholesalers and retailers buying and selling products,
they are to follow the supply chain whereas when it comes the e-commerce industry, what they
do is that they directly take their products from the suppliers which therefore reduces a lot of cost
for them and therefore they are able to sell their product at prices which is the cost price for these
wholesalers and retailers. Submission has been made to the court by the petitioners asking the
court to regulate the e-commerce activities as it is affecting them but what they do not
understand is that the court does not have the authority to do so as their role is to determine the
law and interpret it and not regulate it. Regulation of competition and business is done by the
Competition Commission of Kratos (CCK) and it also happens to be the forum where the case is
supposed to be filed when it comes to the issue of determination or fixation of price. First a
complaint is supposed to be filed and after the complaint is filed, investigation is done on the
matter and then a report is submitted before the Competition Commission of Kratos by the DG.

Therefore it can be seen and understood that there is an existence of an alternate remedy which is
filing a complaint or an application before the Competition Commission of Kratos which is
appropriate forum to deal with this subject matter, is to be taken and the High Court had
dismissed this earlier in an order.

The principles and procedures of the Supreme Court is guided by the doctrine of exhaustion of
alternate remedies where it states that before approaching the Supreme Court with any matter, all
the other remedies that are readily available to them must be first exhausted and only after all the
legal remedies have been exhausted can a person come before the Supreme Court unless there
are certain special circumstances involved whereby the person has to convince the court why it
must allow the appeal.11 Writ petition has been filed by the petitioners before the High Court
asking the court to regulate the e-commerce companies but the respondent humbly submits that
the Supreme Court has clearly laid down in Onkarlal Nandlal v. State of Rajasthan,12 that when a

11
British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh Additional Commissioner of Customs, AIR
1964 SC 1451: 1984 ECR 487 (SC).
12
Onkarlal Nandlal v. State of Rajasthan, (1985) 4 SCC 404.

14
person fails to exhaust the alternate remedies that are available to him/her, then the Special Leave petition
becomes non maintainable.

In the case of Nardeep Kumar Maheshwari v. Indian Oil Corporation & Others, the Punjab &
Haryana High Court stated that "Article 226 of the Constitution does not contain any express bar
to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has got an alternative
remedy. The rule that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the petitioner is only one of the
several rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by the Superior Courts for exercise of Writ
Jurisdictions.However, the availability of alternative remedy has never been treated as an
absolute bar to the entertaining of writ petition and in appropriate cases, the Courts have
exercised writ jurisdiction for grant of relief to the aggrieved parties despite the availability of
alternative remedy.”13 Supreme Court has given many judgments where they were of different
opinion. ”

In the case of Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad Maheshwari,
the three-judge bench of the supreme court examined the issue of exhaustion of remedy and laid
down the following proposition: - “When an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open
to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not to invoke the special
jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of a
statutory remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ. But, the
existence of an adequate legal remedy is thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of
granting writs and where such a remedy exists it will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse
to interfere in a writ petition unless there are good grounds therefor. But it should be
remembered that the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies before a writ is granted, is a rule
of self-imposed limitation, a rule of policy, and discretion rather than a rule of law and the court
may therefore in exceptional cases issue a writ such as a writ of certiorari, notwithstanding the
fact that the statutory remedies have not been exhausted.” 14 Therefore, it can be clearly seen and
understood that there is the requirement that needs to be fulfilled first which is the exhaustion of
all the alternate remedies that are available and MTU has to therefore first go before the
appropriate forum to resolve their issue and that appropriate forum is the Competition
13
ILR (2002) 2 P&H 380.
14
AIR 1969 SC 556.”

15
Commission of Kratos and it is the DG who after receiving the complaint or application will go
ahead and investigate on the issue of exclusive agreement between the producers and the e-
commerce companies.“T

In the case of Ansal Housing Construction Limited v. State of UP & others, the counsel
contented that the High Court did not have the authority or jurisdiction to adjudicate on the
matter and its involvement with the issue is not justified, The court stated that

“In our view, bereft of the required materials before the High Court, the Court was not justified
in adjudicating the issue at the first instance when there is a statutory scheme provided for
adjudication of such issues by the competent authorities concerned.”15

The Supreme Court in Thansingh Nathmal And Ors vs A. Mazid, Superintendent Of Taxes held
that where there is existence of alternate remedies, then the writ petition shall not be considered
by the High Court as the alternate provides the same remedy which has the same outcome and
therefore needs to be considered first."16

The authority that deals with the issue at hand is the Competition Commission of Kratos and it is
the forum where the complaint or the application is to be filed but even though this remedy is
available to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed for writ petition before the high court. As
stated earlier, there are existence of abundant judgement that reaffirm the fact that when there is
an alternate legal remedy available, then this alternate legal remedy is to given priority and
therefore they are supposed to approach the forum. In the case of Ram Barai Singh v State of Bihar,
the Supreme court had stated that "A constitutional remedy by the way of writ petition is always
available to an aggrieved party but availability of alternative remedy is definitely a permissible
ground for refusal by a Writ Court to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases."17”

“The present petition can be made in a case where a substantial question of law is involved or
where gross injustice has been observed."18 "The judgement, decree or order against which the

15
Ram Barai Singh v State of Bihar, (2015) 13 SCC 592, Para 11
16
Thansingh Nathmal And Ors vs A. Mazid, Superintendent Of Taxes 1964 AIR 1419
17
Ram Barai Singh v State of Bihar, (2015) 13 SCC 592, Para 11.”
18
“ Sanwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715.

16
appeal is being made must have the character of judicial adjudication. This implies that purely
administrative or executive order or ruling cannot be a matter of appeal."19

The respondents humbly submit before the honorable court that there exists no violation of
fundamental rights in the present suit. High Court or Supreme Court is not the appropriate
tribunal to deal with the issues at hand in presence of statutory remedy available with the
appellants.”

19
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Laxmichand, AIR 1963 SC 677.”

17