Consumer Education and Research Society vs GODREJ SOAPS LTD.

THE complainant, a registered Consumers'' Association has filed this complaint against M/s. Godrej Soaps, Ltd., which is the business undertaking and is engaged in the activities of manufacturing variety of consumers'' products including the one widely sold product Hair dye - popularly known as Godrej "Self-spreading permanent Hair-dye". Another hair-dye manufactured by the said Company is also sold by the trade name of Godrej Powder Hair Dye Concentrate. Both these hair-dyes are used by thousand of consumers in the country.

THE complainant has alleged that according to the study conducted for the last twenty years, evidence has been found that some of the hair-dyes sold in the market contain deleterious substances. Consequently, the consumer organizations of several countries have been engaged in research and dissemination of information regarding objectionable ingredients used in various types of hair-dyes sold in the market. THE complainant has further alleged that the hair-dyes manufactured and marketed by the opponent company consists of a mixture of Para-Phenylenediamine (P-pd) phenol (e.g. resorbinol and/or aromatic nitro-derivatives). According to the complainant, doupling of these compounds in the presence of hydrogen peroxide produces large coloured molecules which are incorporated into the hair-shaft. Basing upon the result of research findings, experience and study made upon such research, the complainant stated that P-pd as is used in hair-dye with hydrogen peroxide, is suspected to be carcinogenic and, therefore, causes adverse effect to health and safety of the human-life.

The complainant thereafter wrote a letter dated June 16, 1989, to the opposite party stating that the chemical which is particularly used by them in hair-dye, is P-pd. It was further pointed out by the complainant that according to the study conducted and the research findings published, it had been found that this chemical was "carcinogenic". 4(1) The opposite party by its letter dated June 22, 1989, informed the complainant that P-pd used in their hair-dye product has been proved to be non-carcinogenic. 4(2) With a view to clarify the matter further, the complainant again wrote a letter dated 10th July,1989, pointing out therein that the view of the company was not acceptable: on account of the preponderance of scientific evidence, to the contrary. The complainant stressed that in a matter where health hazard is involved, they do not have to wait for the people to die of cancer and then to issue warning. In order to prevent occurrence of any tragedy in future, it was suggested that the hair-dye should contain the warning. In short. the opposite party was not agreeable to any of the suggestion of the complainant and, in order to prevent the hazard of cancer, the complainant has filed this Petition. 4(3) In support of the complaint, in para 9, the complainant has averred that the hair dye of the opposite party suffers from a defect within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumers Protection Act, (for short, the said Act), the hair-dye being injurious, the manufacturer was under a duty not to sell or distribute any goods which are likely to cause danger to the safety or to cause injury to the human being. 4(4) The complainant also alleged that the opposite party is guilty of unfair trade practice by not disclosing this hazard to the consumers or for not giving such warning on the packing.

NOTICE to the opposite party was ordered to be issued and served, and in response to the notice, the opposite party appeared and has filed its affidavit-in-reply through its Deputy General Manager, (Legal), and has denied the allegations made by the complainant The deponent has stated that the hair-dye manufactured and sold in India and also most of the hair-dyes manufactured and sold abroad in liquid form and having two components, contain the chemical called P-pd. Inspite of this, the present complainant has chosen, for reasons best known to it, to file the complaint only against this opponent and not against the manufacturers of same product in India, e.g., Bagon, True-tone, Park-avenue, etc. According to the opposite party, this fact establishes that the complaint is not motivated by any general public interest and the complainant has not come with clean hands. 5(1) The opponent has further stated that P-pd was a minor component of the opponent''s product and its proportion did not exceed 4% and, according to the opponent, it may be possible that this chemical may be injurious and possible carcinogenic when tested as a pure chemical, that is to say, in its 100% concentration and strength. 5(2) The contention of the deponent on behalf of the opposite party further is that the reports relied upon by the complainant are highly imaginative, far-fetched and unjustified and that even a casual perusal of those reports would clearly indicate that such reports do not in any manner attribute any carcinogenic activity to the chemical P-pd when used in the prescribed dilutions and when applied for the strictly limited duration of time. 5(3) Further contention of the opponent is that similar liquid hair-dyes in two component systems which are manufactured and sold in the western countries, namely Germany, Netherlands, Italy. France, Portugal, Spain and Belgium, permits used and addition of P-pd upto 6% and, obviously, this percentage is permitted to be used by the relevant laws applicable in those countries. Relying upon the Food & Drugs Administration of the United States of America''s Report, the deponent stated that the policy approach of the said administration before permitting the marketing of a product is to require the manufacturer to prove to the satisfaction of the Administration that the product and the contents were not harmful to the society rather than to prove that the product is made for use under the prescribed conditions. The deponent has stated in his own words that : ".....under the circumstances, when use of P-pd may be permissible upto the extent of 6% in the United States of America, as is the case in European countries, it cannot possible be suggested that the use of this chemical in a proportion of less than 4% can possibly be regarded to the harmful...."

5(4) The further submission of the opposite party is that, the liquid hair-dye is a cosmetic within the meaning of Section 3(aaa) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. The manufacturer and sale of such cosmetics is governed by the provision of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act and the Rules, framed thereunder. According to the deponent, Section 18 of the said Drugs & Cosmetics Act, prohibits the manufacturer from offering for sale ''or for distribution or sell or stock for sale, cosmetics which are not of a standard quality or cosmetics containing any ingredient which may render it unsafe or harmful for use under the directions indicated and/or recommended or any cosmetic in contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter IV of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder. The rule, viz. Rule 150-A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, specifies that the standards of quality of cosmetic shall be as prescribed under Schedule ''S'' of the said Rules. Now, Item (10) of the said Schedule ''S'' refers to oxidation hair-dye, liquid type of product as manufactured by the opposite party. The standards of quality which are required to be met, are those as prescribed by the Indian Standard Institution. According to the opposite party''s leaflet "IS: 8481 -1977: prescribes the specifications for oxidation hair dye liquid and that the IS specifications provide for use of the said P-pd at a level not more than 4%. He has stated that the product of the opposite party is in strict compliance with the IS-specifications inclusive of P-pd contents. 5(5) With regard to the allegation of unfair trade practice, the deponent has contended that the company is covered by Part ''A'' of Chapter III of the MRTP Act of 1969, having registration No. 492/1970. The deponent has also referred to the definition of the phrase".... unfair trade practice..." as appearing in Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act. 5(6) The deponent has also referred to the definition of the term "complaint" appearing in Section 2(1 )(c) of the Act, as also different clauses, namely (a) and (i) thereof, and relying upon the said definition, he has contended that the alleged complainant has neither pleaded. nor has shown any loss or damage, because the complainant has not suffered any damage on account of the alleged adoption of any unfair trade practice. Relying on these contentions and submissions, the opposite party has prayed that the notice issued by the Commission may be discharged and the complaint may be dismissed. Again, considering the definition of the term ''complaint'' and that of the "complainant" and also having regard to the reliefs claimed, according to the opposite party, the complaint is not maintainable and that the Commission has no jurisdiction to grant any relief. The complainant has filed a rejoinder, denying the contentions raised and submissions made by the opposite party and has staled, inter alia, that, on account of the pressure of the cosmetic lobby, the Congress of USA has given highly controversial exemption to the manufacturers and dealers of hair-dyes; and that it has been authentically stated that, .... the hair-dye exemption in Section 601 has been by far the most controversial issue in federal cosmetic regulations during the past several years.....". It is also submitted on behalf of the complainant that the problem connected with the hair-dyes came to public attention in late 1977 and early 1978 after well-published discussions in the Congress of the possible effect of certain hair-dye chemicals, and that a major effort was monted by F.D.A. to require cancer caution labelling at the user level and the Congress was asked to consider prompt repeal of the hair-dye exemptions.

THE complainant has further relied upon certain citations referred to in various books and has contended that the opposite party is under a legal duty to incorporate the specific warning for users and directions for such use. Having regard to the pleadings of the panics and the submissions made at the Bar, the following points will arise for decision:- (1) Whether the complainant proves that the hair-dyes manufactured and/or marketed by M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd., contain any ''defect'' within the meaning of Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Consumers'' Protection Act? (2) Whether the complainant proves that the hair-dyes marketed and/or manufactured by the opposite party is unsafe or causing injury to the human being, as alleged? (3) Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to hear the complaint regarding the unfair trade practice, as alleged? (4) Whether the opposite party is adopting any unfair trade practice within the meaning of Sub-clause of Sub-sec. (2) of Section 2 of the aforesaid Act? (5) Does the opposite party prove that the hair-dye marketed by it is of such a quality and standard which ensures ''total safety'' as promised under its advertisements? (6) Is the complainant entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by it?

No party has adduced any oral evidence and both the parties have relied upon their affidavits and documents produced by them and contended that the points raised and submissions made by both the sides in this complaint can very well be decided on the basis of the material produced by them, without any oral evidence being led by them.

DR. Shroff, the learned representative appearing for the complainant, vehemently argued that the hair-dye manufactured and marketed by M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd., admittedly contains para-phenylenediamine, which is popularly known is ''P-pd'', along with the mixture of hydrogen peroxide and other chemicals; and that this P-pd in computation of other chemicals, is proved to be carcinogenic and unsafe for being used as hair-dye for human being. In other words, according to DR. Shroff, this suspected chemical causes adverse effect on the health of the human being. According to DR. Shroff, therefore, the product manufactured and marketed by the opposite party Godrej Soaps Ltd., is defective within the meaning of Section 2, Sub-clause (1) of Clause (F) of the Consumer Protection Act.

IN support of his submission, Dr. Shroff relied upon a study entitled "Carcinogenicity of an Oxidative product of P. Phenylenediamine" published in Volume VII of carcinogen with specific force on the following observations appearing in the said study report. ".... However, our recent investigations show that four commercial oxidative type hair dye formulations containing P-pd (2.33-5, 93%), 3% H2O2 , as well as other ingredients such as resorcinol significantly increase the incidence of memory gland tumour in female rats and of sarcoma in both male and female rats after treating animals by either skin application or subcutaneous injection, continuously for eighteen months....."

The said Report further shows that :- ."..... topical applications of oxidised P-pd once a week induced a statistically significant incidence of mamarry gland tumours (50%, 5/10 rats) and also induced 10% (1/10 rats) fibromatosis of soft tissues in female rats. IN male rats, a total of 40% (4/10 rats) developed tumours of various organs including liver (2 rats) with cholangiocarcinoma and liver cell adenoma, kidney (nephroblastom) with long and pancreas metastasis, urinary bladder (transitional cell papilloma) and adrenal gland (cotrical adenoma)..."

The Report further says that:- "......the result here clearly demonstrates that oxidized P-pd administered to rats either by painting on skin or by subcutaneous injection, induced a statistically significant incidence of mammary gland tumours in female rats and one of the experimental animals developed a maligant type. IN addition, the oxidation mixture also significantly caused malignant and tumours of soft tissues in female rats treated subcutaneous. Furthermore, this mixture appeared to be associated with the induction of tumours of liver, kidney, bladder, adrenal gland, thyroid gland and lung in male rats and of uterine tumour in female rats...."

And, on this basis, it is stated that from the results presented in this report, it is concluded that the oxidation product of P-pd is carcinogenic to Wistar rats, particularly the female, both by subcutaneous injection and skin painting. On page 16 of the Annexure, there is further observation that :- "..... As mentioned earlier, P-pd is widely used for the preparation of commercial oxidative type hair-dye formulations and is neugenic activity being found to be markedly increased upon oxidation with H2 O2 which is a re-action similar to that occurring in the hair-dying process. It is, therefore, very interesting to examine the carcinogenic potential of P-pd after H2 O2 peroxidation in animals. As expected, the results here clearly demonstrate that oxidized P-pd administered to rats and one of the experimental animals developed a maligant type....."

From the results presented in this report, it is concluded, as aforesaid, that the oxidation product of P-pd is carcinogenic to Wistar rats, particularly the female, both by SC injection and skin painting. Dr. Shroff has also relied on another study report which is at Annexure II and the said report also bases its conclusions on the application of P-pd with other chemicals on the skin of rats which are caused/have induced significant incidence of liver tumour in rats.

There is yet one more report at Annexure III showing that after oxidation by H2O2, P-pd becomes strongly mutagenic and carcinogenic. As the said report shows, four hair-dye preparations, commercially available in Thailand, containing upto 6% P-pd when mixed with 3% H2 O2 have been found was that carcinogenic, and that what was found was that statistically significant increase was noted in the incidence of mammary gland tumours in female rats and cancer of other sites in both male and female rates having been observed after skin application or subcutaneous injection of P-pd. The report also shows that Resorcinol was also present in the mixtures. The report ultimately shows that those result were consistent with those of epidemiological studies which suggest that there is an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have used permanent hair-dyes over long periods and that they should be tested in studies with more animals and a range of dose groups.

IN the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed on behalf of the complainant, it has been stated that in Newzeland every preparation containing P-pd should be labeled as poisonous. It is also stated in the said affidavit that in the USA, warning sign *.... Cancer suspect agent..* has to be given at the premises where P-pd is manufactured. Mr. Shroff has also produced the relevant extract in support of this submission, stating further that in Sweden, it is provided that ".....Cosmetic & Hugenic products may not contain para-phenylenedimine ...." and the further contention in the affidavit-in-rejoinder is that a duty is cast on the manufacturer and distributor to incorporated this warning for user and directions for use. Mr. Shroff has also contended that the remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not to derogation of the provision of any other law. On these premises, Mr. Shroff strongly urged that the P-pd used with H2 O2 is definitely proved to be carcinogenic substance on application on rats and hence I suspected carcinogenic agent when used by human being as hair-dye. Mr. Shroff, therefore, submitted that this is a clear case of apparent defect in goods and also will amount to ''unfair trade practice''.

IN order to decide this point raised by Dr. Shroff, it is necessary to reproduce and analyse the true and real meaning of. the word "Defect and defined in the Act. Section 2(1)(f) which refers to the definition, reads as under: . "Defect" means any fault or short-coming in the quality, quantity, potency purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force, or as claimed by the traders in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods......" The definition is an exclusive definition and, thereof we shall have to find out, firstly, as to what is the quantity, quality, product purity or the standard required to be maintained by the manufacturer and/or the trader under any law for the time being in force; and, secondly, as to what is the quality, quantity, potency and purity or standard claimed by a trader in any method whatever in relation to any goods. So far as the first question is concerned, Mr. K.S. Nanavati has rightly cleared the legal position. According to Mr. K.S. Nanavati, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, assuming for the sake of arguments that the chemical P-pd in combination with H2 O2 is suspected to be carcinogenic on rats, the legislature is aware of this fact and it has taken proper care while fixing the percentage of P-pd or allowed to be added in hair-dye formulation. In order to make out this point. Mr. Nanavati has submitted that this product was very much under consideration of law making authorities. He submitted that the liquid hair-dye is a "cosmetic" within the meaning of Section 3(aaa) of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940. He further stated that the manufacture and sale of such products are governed by the provision of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Mr. K.S. Nanavati pointed out that Section 18 of the Cosmetic & Drugs Act prohibits a manufacturer from offering for sale or distribution of a cosmetic which is not of a standard quality or cosmetic containing any ingredient by any standard considered unsafe or harmful or in contravention of any of the provision of chapter IV of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act and the Rules made thereunder. Now, Rule 250 A of the Drugs & Cosmetic Rules lays down that the standard of equality of cosmetic character can be as prescribed under Schedule ''S'' of the said Rules. So far as "Hair-dye" is concerned, it is included in item No. (10) of Schedule ''S'' under the said Rules and the standard of quality required to be met with is the one prescribed under the Indian Standard Institute. We are, therefore, required to consider the specification and/or the standard required under the Indian Standard Institute which is as per 8481 -1988 and its specification provides for use of active matter dye (aryl amine) 0.5 to 4 p.c. The ''aryl amine'', we are told by both parties, is ''P-pd''. The combined reading of these specifications and the provision, as argued by Mr. Nanavati, permits the use of P-pd in a hair-dye at a level as prescribed but not more than four per cent. On going through these documents, we find that the P-pd used in hair dye in question by the opposite party Godrej Soaps, does not exceed four per cent. It is, therefore, not contrary to the standard prescribed under the Act and the Rules. In other words, the use of P-pd at a level not exceeding 4 per cent has been permitted and the said standard of percentage cannot be said to be contrary to the requirement Dr. Sroff, however, suggested that the test on the basis of IS-Standard is an old standard and the risk which has been caused by use of the hair-dye as per the test reports submitted by the complainant which require to be considered. We are afraid, we cannot accept this suggestion of carcinogenic effect found on rats by different experiments, being the same on a human being, since the manufacture of hair-dye is as per the prescribed standard and the Legislature is aware of the circumstances and the defects. In our view, the proper forum for vindicating this grievance is the State Legislature since the material on which Dr. Sroff seeks to rely upon, is the study reports and it is the State Legislature which can determine the standard and/or specification of any cosmetic item, including the hair dye.

MR. Nanavati has produce "Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulation, 1989, made under the Consumer Protection Act of the United Kingdom. This Legislature was enacted on 29.4.1989 and was placed before the Parliament on 6.12.1989 and came into force as law on January 1, 1990. Schedule II thereof contains a list of products which must contained and/or should not contain certain specifications, subject to restrictions contained therein. Part I thereof relates to directions and restrictions, and item No. (8) on page 29 thereof in MNC Phenol on which MR. Nanavati relies. MR. K.S. Nanavati, while relying upon this item, submitted that the law making authority has permitted 6% contents of P-pd, subject to the provision of "Combination Rule A" as maximum concentration of substance in product. This shows that the occasional use of P-pd at the concentration of 6% is not considered to be harmful to the human being. Indian Law is stricter than the British Law and the Company is utilizing P-pd not more than three to four per cent and hence this cannot be said to be in breach of the standard required to be maintained by or under any Law for the time being in force. We feel that the submission of MR. K.S. Nanavati shall have to be sustained. We, therefore, hold that there is no defect in the hair-dye and it cannot, therefore, be said that there is any fault or any short-coming in quality or the standard required to be maintained by or under the law, within the meaning of Clause (f) of Sub-section (2) Sec. 2 of the Act. This, therefore, disposed of the main point No. (1), accordingly.

HOWEVER, Dr. Shroff appears to be right in his further submission that the hair-dye manufactured and marketed by Godrej Soaps does not satisfy the standard and/or the quality as claimed by the opposite party in its advertisement Annexure-C annexed to the rejoinder. The advertisement alleged to have been published by the opposite party states that a consumer can be secured of the quality of Godrej self-spreading hair-dyes in as much as, there is a ".....total safety....." that the Godrej promises. Now, it cannot be disputed from the evidence appearing on record that P-pd used in combination with H2O2 is suspected carcinogenic agent and when applied to rats, it cause tumour and in controlled group, one female rat developed sarcoma of uterus and experience also showed increased risk of breast cancer in women who have used permanently the hair-dye for a long period. It is true that many of the findings of experiments on rats are on a concentrated form basis. However, one cannot promise, under the circumstances, that there is a "total safety" as promised by Godrej. This plea of Mr. Shroff appears to be acceptable.

Now, if we view this evidence in the form of advertisement from another angle, it cannot be disputed that this substances causes allergic reaction and hence the opposite party itself has advised sensitive persons to be careful before the use of hair-dye. Even if we may discount the possibility of suspected cancerogenic element, it indefinitely causes allergy and re-action in sensitive persons and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that it is ".......totally safe.......". Realising this difficulty, Mr. K.S. Nanavati has, in his usual way, advised his clients to drop the word ".......total safety........" from the public advertisement and we are happy to say that the opposite party has filed a purshish before us on September 10, 1990, placing on record the decision of the management to drop the words ".....total safety......" from the advertisement. We are inclined to accept the purshish of the management because, though the advertisement Annexure-C gives misleading impression, the company is enclosing in its every bottle, the instructions, which clearly state that there is a possibility of allergic re-action and hence a person is expected to carry out or to get carried out the sensitive test of hair-dye before such user. We are, therefore, satisfied that if these words ".....total safety....." are dropped from the advertisement, the promise of total safety will disappear and there will then remain no ground or grievance to the complainant.

NEXT point urged by Dr. Shroff is that the Company is guilty of ''unfair trade practice''. Dr. Shroff in this connection submitted that the opposite party had the full harmful to the health and safety of the person consuming the same. Even then, according to Dr. Shroff, Godrej Soaps does not comply with the requirement of Law, namely, that if any hazards are known or came to the light for the use of the product, the same has to be disclosed. According to the submissions made by Dr. Shroff, the opposite party ought to publish a warning in the lable, stating the hazards known to the opposite party and, failure to do so is an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(C)(i) of the Act. Now, Dr. Shroff has contended in the Affidavit in rejoinder that the opposite party has given a promise of "....total safety...." in the advertisement copy whereof is annexed at Annexure C to the said Affidavit, and that this promise can also be considered, according to Dr. Shroff, as an Unfair Trade Practice. In reply, Mr. K.S. Nanavati, the learned Advocate for the opposite party, raised a legal contention that in view of the definition contained in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide this issue since the undertakings which are covered by Part A of Chapter III of the Monopolies & Restriction in Trade Practice Act, are excluded from the purview of the Act. Mr. Nanavati further submitted that the undertaking of Godrej Soaps is in fact covered by Part A of Chapter III of the MRTP Act and consequently registered under Section 56 of the said Act, read with Regulation 492/1970. On merits, Mr. Nanavati argued that the product Hair-dye having been manufactured strictly in accordance with the provision of law, namely, Drugs & Cosmetics Act and the Rules framed thereunder, read with the Indian Standards Certification Marks Act. Further, relying upon the said provision, Mr. Nanavati also contended that the Indian Standard Specification for oxidation hair-dye liquid as contained in IS 8481 : 1977 vide para 3.2 provides the particular information to be printed on the carton and on in the leaflet and, accordingly, the leaflet enclosed in the packing is printed in terms of the said instructions. None of the provision provides for printing of any warning that the hair-dye is hazardous to health and safety of the human being as demanded by the complainant. It is only provides, according to Mr. Nanavati, giving of warning that it has not to be used for eye-brow and to bring the word ".....poison.....".

CONSIDERING all the pros and cons and weighing the material produced before us by both the sides, as also the legal provisions governing the manufacture of hair-dye, we find that the submissions made by Mr. Nanavati are well-founded and deserve to be accepted. However, even if the opposite party has complied with the requirement of law as stated above, it cannot be said that the impugned hair dye is totally safe, because as has been stated, it is not only poisonous but is susceptible of causing allergic re-action to certain individuals and, may be also injurious to the eyes if applies on eye-brow. If a gullible consumer reads the advertisement Annexure ''C'' wherein the opposite party has assured "......total safety......." of use of the impugned hair-dye, and which is to be treated as a promise by Godrej Soaps, in view of above imperfection, can be said to be mis-leading and hence, atleast, this part of the argument of Dr. Shroff will have to be accepted. However, realizing this difficulty posed against the opposite party, Mr. K.S. Nanavati, the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the basis of the position as emerging from the above facts and circumstances, filed a purshish, placing on record the decision of the management to drop the words "....total safety....." from the advertisement and requested us to accept the same to meet the objections of the complainant. We are inclined to take the purshish filed by Mr. K.S. Nanavati on record and accepting the assurances given by the management of the opposite party to drop the words "......total safety....." from the advertisement. It is, therefore, not necessary to decide this issue. We, therefore, direct that the opposite party shall delete and/or drop the words ".....total safety....." from all the advertisements published by them in future, as agreed by them.

IN view of our decision as stated above, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the Commission has jurisdiction to decide the point as to whether the Undertaking of Godrej Soaps, Ltd., is covered under Part ''A'' of Chapter III of the MRTP Act, and Mr. K.S. Nanavati also does not press for decision on this issue.

IN view of our findings and the purshish filed by the opposite party, the objection as to advertisement of the complainant does not survive. Two months'' time as prayed for by the opposite party to comply with the order, is granted. The complaint shall stand disposed of with the aforesaid directions. IN the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Complaint disposed of.