1. We have heard the learned Advocates representing the DG as well as the respondent. The present inquiry has been instituted on an application made by the DG stating therein that the respondents issued an advertisement under the caption "Ciba Vision" in order to promote the sale of Focus Disposable Contact Lenses with a representation therein that there is no protein buildup in these Contact Lenses and there is no hassle of using protein remover tablets. It is an admitted fact that the aforesaid advertisement appeared only during the period April, 1998 to July, 1998 and was discontinued thereafter, even before the Notice of Enquiry dated 22.7.1999 was issued to the respondents. It is also not disputed or denied that the aforesaid impugned advertisement was discontinued by the respondents in July, 1998 and during the pendency of the present proceeding, the same or similar advertisement was not issued again by the respondents. It may also be mentioned here that the DG filed the present application, on the basis of which the present inquiry was instituted, on a complaint dated 18.6.1998, from one Ms. Mini Pillai, who challenged the representation made therein stating that protein buildup takes place every day on soft lenses, and there was no evidence to substantiate the claim, to the contrary, made in the impugned advertisement. However, it is pertinent to note that the complainant, Miss Mini Pillai did not appear as a witness despite several opportunities afforded for this purpose. There is no other evidence of an eye-specialist or of an opthalmologist or a medical practitioner or any medical authority to the effect that the representation made by the respondents in the impugned advertisement is false or deceptive or misleading. In other words, the allegations regarding adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practice, within the meaning of Section 36A(1) of the MRTP Act, 1969 by the respondents, contained in the DG's application on the basis of which the present inquiry was instituted have not been substantiated.
2. Even otherwise the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case A.I.O. of Chemists and Druggists & Ors. v. Director General (Investigation and Registration), reported in CTJ 4 SC MRTP 2002, is on all fours and is applicable to the present proceeding as the alleged unfair trade practice has since been discontinued by the respondents in July, 1998 even before the Notice of Enquiry was issued and during the last five years or so while the present proceeding was pending before the Commission, the alleged trade practice has not been repeated. It has been so conceded by the learned Advocate representing the DG. In view of the above, the present inquiry is dropped and the Notice of Enquiry dated 22.7.1999 is discharged with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.