Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
BOMBAY OIL INDUSTRIES
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/11/1983
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
MISRA, R.B. (J)
CITATION:
1984 AIR 160 1984 SCR (1) 815
1984 SCC (1) 141 1983 SCALE (2)816
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1987 SC1564 (2)
E 1990 SC1744 (4)
ACT:
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 of
its order.
HEADNOTE:
HELD: The faith of the people 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]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3191 of
1983.
WITH
S.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. Desai for the Appellant.
B. V. Desai for the petitioner.
P. R. Mridul, Ravindra Narain, D. N. Misra and Ashok
Sagar for the respondent in C. A. No. 3191/83.
M. L. Talukdar, C.V. Subba Rao and R. N. Poddar for the
respondent.
D.N. Misra and R. N. Poddar for the respondent in
S.L.P. No.4311/83.
816
The Order of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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
counter 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 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 available 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 meet
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 conclusions to which the Government has come, the
authorities concerned may, with profit, see the Judgments of
this Court in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors.,
Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Limited v.
Union of India & Ans. and Uma Charan v. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Anr.
With these observations we dismiss the special leave
petition and the appeal.
H.L.C. Petition dismissed.
817