BOMBAY OIL INDUSTRIES v. UNION OF INDIA

BOMBAY OIL INDUSTRIES A v.

UNION OF INDIA

November 14, 1983 _ B [Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., E. S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R. B. MISRA, JJ,]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 3191 of 1983. WITH E-. 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. F Ani/ B. Divan ana B. V. Desai for the Appellant.

B. V. ·Desai for the petitioner.

_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. H D. N. Misra and R. N. Poddar for the respondent in S.L.P. r No.4.311/83. I - ·- ·-

816 SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS [1984) 1 S.C.R; . . . . The Order of the C9urt was delivered by A 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 c 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 D 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 · F v: Uma 'Charan 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 . • ' .