OSSEIN AND GELATINE MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION OF INDIA versus MODI ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 815 · Decided: 10-08-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
OSSEIN AND GELATINE MANUFACTURERS' 
ASSOCIATION OF INDIA 
v. 
MODI ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD. & ANR. 
AUGUST 10, 1989 
[SABYASACHT MUKHARJI ANDS. RANGANATHAN, Ji.) 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969: Sections 
21, 22 and 23-Granting of applications-Central ·Government bound 
to give reasoned orders-To appraise evidence or review such reasoned 
conclusions-Not within the province of Courts. · 
Respondent No. 1 made an application to the Central Government 
for permission to establish an nndertaking for the manufacture of 
Ossein and Gelatine in the State of Rajasthan. The appellant Associa-
tion made representations before the Central Government objecting to 
the grant of the said application inter alia on the ground that it would 
cripple the small scale business of its members, who were already func-
tioning far below capacity on accoudt of short supply of crushed bones. 
The Central Government rejected the objections and granted the appli-
cation of the Respondent, under .·section 22 of the Monopolies and 
Restrictive Trade Practices Act, by its order dated 20.9.1988. 
Aggrieved by the said order, appellant association has preferred this 
appeal under section 55 M the MRTP Act. 
-
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the Central 
Government has failed to pass a reasoned order and has. not followed 
tpe principles of natural justice. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: 1. The order of the Government is a detailed and elabo-
rate one. It sets ont the contentions and deals with them seriatim. The 
point made that existing units·were already functioning below capacity 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
due to insufficient supply of crushed bones and that the entry of the G 
Respondent No.· 1 into the arena would drive them out of business has 
not. been overlooked. Only, as against this, the Government has con-
sidered to be more weighty the economic advantages in granting the 
application of Respondent No. 1 arising out of the circumstances that 
they would be setting up the industry in a backward area; that they had 
categorically undertaken to export at least 60% of their proposed pro-
H 
815 
A 
B 
c 
D 
G 
816 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
duction; that since they would be producing their own hydrochloric 
acid, the availability of such acid to others will not be affected; and that 
the short supply of the raw material (crushed bones) may not be a 
constraint for permitting the manufacture of value-added products like 
Ossein and Gelatine. The order bears testimony to the fact that the pros 
and cons have been fully considered and a decision taken. It is Bot 
within the province of the Courts to appraise the evidence or review the 
conclusion of the Government. [818G-H; 819A-B] 
' 
l! 
Oramco Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufactur-
ing (Weaving) Company Ltd. & Anr., [1987] 2 SCC 620 and Bombay 
Oil Industries v. Union of India, [1984] 1SCR815, referred to. 
·5-( 
2. In the instant case, requirements of natural justice have been 
fulfilled and no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. Of course 
the order has been passed by an officer different from the one who 
heard the parties. However, the proceedings were not i,; the nature of 
formal judicial hearings. They were in the nature of meetings and full 
minutes were recorded of all the points discussed at each meeting. The 
order itself summarises and deals with all the important objections. The 
delay in the passing of the order also does not viti!'te the order in the 
absence of any suggestion that there has been a change of circumstances 
in the interregnum brought to the notice of the authorities or that the 
authority passing the order has forgotten to deal with any particular 
aspect by reason of such delay. The contention that the application of 
Respondent No. 1 had referred to bonemeal as the raw material used 
aud this was later changed to 'crushed bones' is pointless because it is 
not disputed that all along the appellant was aware that the reference to 
bonemeal was incorrect and that Respondent No. 1 was going to use 
crushed bones in the project. That some documents were produced at 
the hearing by Respondent No. 1 which the appellant could not deal 
with effectively is also without force as, admittedly, the appellant's 
representatives were shown those documents but they did not seek any 
time for considering them and countering their effect. Moreover, the 
issue is one of grant of approval by the Governm

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.