r
I
BOMBAY OIL INDUSTRIES
v.
UNION OF INDIA
November 14, 1983 _
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., E. S. VENKATARAMIAH AND
R. B. MISRA, JJ,]
815
A
B
Monopolies ilitd Restrfctive Trade Pra"ctices Act, J.969-Ss. 21; 22 WJ.d 23-
.0bjectors n1ust be supplied witii relevant materials-Government must gi:.,e goOd
·c
rrasons in support of its order.
.
..
•
HELD: The faith of the people in administra~ive 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 ~pportuility and violatiOn
of natural justice: [816 C & E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
of 1983.
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 3191
S.L.P. (CIVIL) No. 4311 of i983.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 30th November, 1982
passed by the Govt. of_lridia u/s.22 of the Monopolies & Restrictive
Trade Practices Act, 1969 bearing No.2/18/80-M·Il.
Ani/ B. Divan ana B. V. Desai for the Appellant.
B. V. ·Desai for the petitioner.
D
E-.
F
_ P. R. Mridul, Ravindra Narain, D. N. Misra and Ashok Sagar
G
for the respondent in C. A. No. ·3191/83.
M. L. Ta/ukdar, 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.4.311/83.
- ·-
·-
H
A
..
c
D
F
•
816
SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS
[1984) 1 S.C.R; .
.
.
.
The Order of the C9urt 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 desiied. ]lut we do hot propose t"o admit the appeal
since: after hearing a longish argument fro~ Shri Atiil 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 i3 of the Monopolies and
Restrictive Trade Practices Act, · 1.969 it must give good reasons in
support of its order. and not merely state iis bald conclusion.
The
faith of the people in administrative .· tribunals can be sustained only
if the tribunals a~ fairly and dispose of the matters b~fore them by
well consi<!ered orders .. The.relevant material musf be·made avail-·
able to be.objectors because with out it, -they cannot possibly must
the claim or contentiom of the applicants under Sections 21, 22 and
23 of the MRTP Act. The refusar of the Government to furnish
such material to the objectors can amount to·a denial of a reasonable-
opportnnity to the objectors to 'meot the applicant's case.
And
denial of a reasonable oppo~unity to meet the other man's case.is
denial of natural justice:
.
·.On the quesiion of the need to give reasons in support o.f the
·conclusions to Which the Governinel)t has come, the authorities
concerned may, . with profit, see the Judgments of this Court in .
' Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors.,(i) Siemens Engineering &
Manufacturing Co. of India .Limited v. Union of India & Ans.(2) and ·
Uma Charan v: State' of Madhya J'radesh & Anr.(8)
·
'
.
.
- .
With these observations we dismiss the special leave petition
and the appeal.
H.L.C.
Petition dismis;~d .
(1) [197411 SCR 797
(2) [1976) Suppl. SCR 489
(3) [1982] 1 SCR!353 .
•
•
' .
Lex