Case No. 14 of 2014. Case: Shri Budh Ram Mahala Vs Mr. Ramgopal Jangid. Competition Commision of India

Case NumberCase No. 14 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: None
JudgesAshok Chawla, Chairman, Anurag Goel, Member (AG), M.L. Tayal, Member (T) and Sudhir Mital, Member
IssueCompetition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(2)
Judgement DateMay 13, 2014
CourtCompetition Commision of India


Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002

  1. The present information was filed by Mr. Budh Ram Mahala, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Doomra, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Informant') under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against Mr. Ramgopal Jangid (hereinafter referred to as 'OP'), alleging, inter alia, contravention of the provisions of the Act with respect to carrying out operation of the educational institutions (hereinafter referred to as 'OP Institutions').

  2. Briefly, as per the information, the OP, the Ex-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Doomra, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, was running various educational institutions in District Jhunjhunu, namely Shrimati Jankidevi Shikshan Prashikhsan Mahavidyalaya Doomra, Shrimati Jankidevi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Doomra, Bal Niketan Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalal Doomra, Gandhi Vidya Mandir Uchh Madhyamik Vidyalaya Mukundgarh and Mukundgarh Public School, Mukundgarh, all in District Jhunjhunu.

  3. The Informant alleged that OP through these institutions has amassed property worth crores of rupees by way of fraud and forgery. As per the Informant, the Opposite Party had connived with higher rank officials in conducting these irregularities.

  4. Briefly, the Informant alleged that there had been a violation of norms laid down by National Council for Teacher Education (NCET) by various institutions of OP. As per the NCET norms, the institutions running B.Ed courses should appoint well qualified M.Ed teachers which the OP institutions did not have. It was alleged that the OP institutions were not depositing Provident Fund of the employees under the employee future fund scheme. Further, the employees were not made members of the ESI because of which they were not entitled to any health facilities in the ESI hospitals. It was also contended that the employees' salaries were not paid by cheque and bogus documents were made to show payment of full salaries. In this way, the OP institutions allegedly disregarded the Rajasthan Private Education Act 1993 and NCET norms while also exploiting the employees'. It was further alleged that income and expenses were not maintained in a proper manner which remained unaudited to avoid financial scrutiny. The OP institutions were also alleged to be guilty of understating its income to evade taxes in a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT