WP(C) 1542/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioners, who are the respondents in the proceeding initiated by the respondent No. 3 herein before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practice s Commission, by the present petitions, have challenged the legality and validit y of the proceedings being CA Nos. 53, 54 and 55 of 2003 as well as the orders d ated 31.8.2005 passed therein by the learned Commission, whereby and whereunder it has been observed that the question of limitation as well as jurisdiction wil l be gone into at a later point of time as this question relates to facts and la w and will be examined in enquiry. According to Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel the ground on which t he said proceedings as well as the aforesaid orders have been challenged is that the allegation against the present petitioners do not come within the meaning o f monopolistic trade practices or restrictive trade practices as defined un er Section 2(i) and (o) respectively of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Pra ctices Act, 1969. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the same als o do not constitute unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 36A o f the said Act. It is submitted by Mr. Sahewalla, that the question of maintaina bility of the proceeding before the learned Commission was raised by the petitio ners and such question being related to the jurisdiction and limitation, ought t o have been decided as preliminary issue which was refused to be done by the ord ers dated 31.8.2005. Mr. Bhatti, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent s who are the complainants before the Commission, has submitted that the Commiss ion by the impugned order has not refused to go into these issues and what was d ecided by the Commission was to go into such dispute at a later point of time as the decision on the said issues can be given only after examination of the evid ences. Mr. Barua, learned CGC appearing for the Union of India has subm itted that this being a dispute between the writ petitioners and the private res pondents, the Union of India has no role to pay at all. It appears from the impugned orders dated 31.8.2005 passed by th e learned Commission that it has not refused to go into the aforesaid questions of limitation as well as jurisdiction as raised by the petitioners in the procee ding instituted by the private respondents before the learned Commission. What t he learned Commission has observed is that to decide these issues some amount of evidence has to be looked into. The learned Commission, therefore, decided to g o into these issues at a later point of time. Since the learned Commission is of the view that some amount of evidence is required to be gone into to decide these issues no illegality can be found in the orders impugned. The issues relating to the limitation and jurisdiction having al ready been raised before the learned Commission, which the Commission has decide d to go into at the appropriate stage of the proceeding, the challenge made to t he proceedings pending before the learned Commission on the ground of lack of ju risdiction is not required to be gone into in the present writ proceeding, which shall definitely be gone into by the learned Commission, as observed in the ord ers dated 31.8.2005, including the question of maintainability of the said proce eding. With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions stand disp osed of. No cost. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.