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