en ae
815 -
BOMBAY OIL INDUSTRIES UNION OF INDIA °°
November 14, 1983 . . ke Wy. VY. CHANDRACHUD, CI, BE, S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R. B. ‘MISRa, w,]
- Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969—Ss. 21; 22 and 23— Objectors must be supplied with relevant materials—Government must. give good reasons in support ofits order. . ¢ a
: HELD: The faith of the people i in administrative tribunals can ‘be’ - sustained only if the «tribunals act fairly and dispose of the matters before them by well considered orders. Refusal to furnish relevant materials to the objectors can amount to denial of reasonable opportunity and violation | of natural justice. [816 C&£E - .
of 1983. WITH | “ $.L.P. (CIVIL) No. 4311 of 1983.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 30th November, 1982 passed by the Govt. of India u/s,22 of the Monopolies & Restrictive.
Trade Practices Act, 1969 bearing No.2/18/80-M-II. Anil B, Divan and B. V. Desat for the Appellant.
BV. Desai for the petitioner.
PLR. Mridul, Ravindra Narain, D. N. Misra and Ashok Sagar -- for the respondent j in C. A. No. ‘3191/83.
M. L. Talukdar, CI v. Subba Rao and R N. Poddar for the ; respondent. ,
_. DN. Misra and aR N. Poddar for ‘the respondent in. SLP. No.4311/83.
“pe
*Civit Apret Lats JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal. No. 3191
.F
816. SUPREME COURT REPORTS |. [1984] 1 scr: The Order of the Court was delivered by a
Cuanpracuup, C.J. ‘The order of the Government dated November 30, 1982 which is impugned in these proceeding leaves much to be desired. But we do. not propose to admit the appeal since. after hearing a longish argument from Shri Anil B. Divan on ' behalf of the appellant, we are satisfied on. the material produced , before us and on perusal of the Gounter ‘affidavit of the Government that, there were good reasons for passing the impugned order. We.
must, however, impress upon the.Government that while disposing of applications under Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 it must give good reasons in
: support of its order and not merely state its bald conclusion. - The faith of the people i in administrative . tribunals can be sustained only if the tribunals act fairly.and dispose of the matters before them by
- well considered orders. .The:relevant, material must be-made avail- .
able to be objectors because with out it, they cannot possibly must the claim or contentions of the applicants under Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the MRTP Act. The refusal of the Government to furnish’ ‘such material to the objectors can amount to-a denial of a reasonable: opportunity to the objectors to'mest the applicant’s case. And _ denial of a reasonable opportunity to meet the other man’s case is denial of natural justice.
".On the question of the need to give reasons in support of the
‘conchisions to which the Government. has come, the authorities -- ~ concerned may, with profit, see the Judgments of this Court i in: .
Union of India vy. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors.,(4) Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Limited v. Union of India & Ans.C )and oo Uma Charan v. State’ “of: Madhya Pradesh & Aur. @ -
With these observations we dismiss the special leave Petition and the appeal.
HL. | - 7 -.. Petition dismissed. ~
Q) [I974J1SCR7I97 . (2) [1976] Suppl. SCR 489 - (3) [1982] 1 SCRE3S3.
*.
#