Supreme Court of India
BOMBAY OIL INDUSTRIESversusUNION OF INDIA
- Citation
- 1983 INSC 174
- Decided
- 14 November 1983
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- Y V CHANDRACHUD
Holding
The Government must provide adequate reasons and disclose relevant material to objectors; failure to do so amounts to denial of natural justice.
Summary
Bombay Oil Industries challenged a Government order issued under Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, alleging that it was not supplied with material necessary to contest the order. The Court examined whether the Government, as an administrative tribunal, must give adequate reasons for its conclusions and must furnish relevant documents to objectors. It held that refusal to provide such material deprives the objector of a reasonable opportunity to meet the case and violates the principles of natural justice. The Court further directed that the Government must give good reasons in support of its orders and not merely state a bald conclusion. Consequently, the special leave petition and the appeal were dismissed.
Issues considered
- The Government must give reasons for its order under the MRTP Act.
- Whether refusal to furnish relevant material to objectors violates natural justice.
- Whether the order can be set aside for lack of procedural fairness.
Legislation cited
- Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969s. 21, s. 22, s. 23
Subjects
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Actnatural justiceadministrative lawright to be heardreasons for orderdisclosure of materialprocedural fairness
Judgment
815
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,]
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] D
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 .
• ' .
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act"Sign in to search