TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (C.G.) dated 20.9.88. By the said order the C.G. granted an application made by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Modis') under section 22 of the Act for permis- sion to establish an undertaking for the manufacture of Ossein and Gelatine in the State of Rajasthan. The petition- er, which claims to be an association of Ossein and Gelatin manufacturers in India, made representations before the C.G. objecting to the grant of the application by the Modis. These objections having been rejected and the application granted by the said order, the aggrieved petitioner has preferred this appeal. We admit the appeal and, having heard counsel on both sides, proceed to dispose of the appeal finally. 2. The following contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant's contentions broadly fall under two heads: one, the denial of natural justice and two, the failure to pass a reasoned order. It will be convenient to deal with the latter objection first. We are unable to accept the appellant's contention that the impugned order is bald, unreasoned or cryptic and vio- lates the requirements for such an order enunciated in the Oramco case [1987] 2 SCC 620, where this Court reaffirmed the following observations made in the Bombay Oil case [1984] 1 SCR 815: 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 mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue of natural justice, we are satisfied that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant by any of the circumstances pointed out by the appellant. It is true that the order has been passed by an officer different from the one who heard the parties. However, the proceedings were not in 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. It has not been brought to our notice that any salient point urged by the petitioners has been missed. On the contrary, the order itself summa- rises and deals with all the important objections of the petitioners. This circumstance has not, therefore, caused any prejudice to the petitioners. The delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referring to certain passages in Local Government Board v. Alridge, [1915] A.C. 120; Ridge v. Baldwin, [1964] A.C. 40; Regina v. Race Relations Board, Ex parte Selvarajan, [1975] 1 WIR 1686 and in de Smith's Judicial Review of Administra- tive Action, Fourth Edn. p. 219-220 submitted that this was not necessarily so and that the contents of natural justice will vary with the nature of the enquiry, the object of the proceeding and whether the decision involved is an institu- tional decision or one taken by an officer specially empow- ered to do it. Sri Divan, on the other hand, pointed out that the majority judgment in Gullappalli Nageswara Rao v. APSR TC, [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 3 19 has disapproved of Al- ridge's case and that natural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
