- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ossein And Gelatine ... v. Modi Alkalies And Ch...
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, an association representing existing manufacturers of ossein and gelatine, challenged an order dated 20 September 1988 issued by the Central Government under Section 22 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (“MRTP Act”). The impugned order granted Respondent 1 (the Modi group) permission to establish a new undertaking for the manufacture of ossein and gelatine in Rajasthan. The appellant had lodged objections, asserting that the new unit would endanger the viability of small-scale manufacturers already operating below capacity due to limited supplies of crushed bones. When the Central Government rejected these objections and granted approval, the appellant invoked Section 55 of the MRTP Act and filed the present appeal. The Supreme Court admitted the appeal, heard both sides, and disposed of it by the judgment summarised below.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Central Government’s order was vitiated for being unreasoned and thereby contrary to the standard articulated in earlier Supreme Court decisions on administrative orders.
- Whether the principles of natural justice were violated because:
- the officer who conducted the oral hearing was different from the officer who ultimately passed the order,
- there was a two-and-a-half-year delay between the hearing and the order,
- the respondent allegedly altered its description of raw material from “bonemeal” to “crushed bones,” and
- certain documents produced by the respondent at the hearing were not supplied to the appellant.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The impugned order merely states conclusions without giving adequate reasons, contravening the standard of “well-considered orders” mandated by Supreme Court precedent.
- Granting permission to the Modis would cripple existing small-scale units already suffering from an insufficient supply of crushed bones, contrary to public interest.
- The officer who heard the objections (Shri S.S. Khosla) was not the officer who decided the matter (Shri Vijayaraghavan), violating the maxim “he who hears must decide.”
- The two-and-a-half-year gap between hearing and decision, combined with the change in decision-maker, denied the appellant a fair hearing.
- The respondent shifted its stated raw material from bonemeal to crushed bones without giving the appellant an opportunity to respond.
- Documents produced by the respondent during the hearing were not supplied to the appellant, impeding an effective rebuttal.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Oramco case, (1987) 2 SCC 620 | Administrative orders must contain “good reasons” and not merely bald conclusions. | The Court held that the Government’s order was detailed and satisfied this requirement, distinguishing the present facts from Oramco. |
| Bombay Oil case, (1984) 1 SCC 141; (1984) 1 SCR 815 | Same principle reaffirmed in Oramco regarding reasoned orders. | Reiterated to underscore the standard, but the Court found the impugned order met it. |
| Local Government Board v. Alridge, 1915 AC 120 | Natural-justice content varies; the decision-maker need not be the hearing officer in every case. | Cited by respondent’s counsel; the Court noted the argument but found it unnecessary to decide the broader issue because no prejudice was shown. |
| Ridge v. Baldwin, 1964 AC 40; (1963) 2 All ER 66 | Foundational case on natural justice requirements. | Referred to in academic discussion; not determinative of the outcome. |
| Regina v. Race Relations Board, Ex parte Selvarajan, (1975) 1 WLR 1686 | Flexibility of natural justice depending on nature of inquiry. | Mentioned to support the respondent’s position; Court did not resolve the broader doctrinal debate. |
| Gullappalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC, AIR 1959 SC 308; 1959 Supp 1 SCR 319 | Majority disapproved Alridge; emphasised that the hearing and decision should normally be by the same authority. | Cited by the appellant, but the Court distinguished the facts and held no prejudice occurred. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
On the allegation of an unreasoned order: The Court examined the impugned order and found it “detailed and elaborate,” noting it summarised the appellant’s objections and dealt with each point in turn. The Central Government had balanced potential harm to existing units against economic advantages—setting up the industry in a backward area, an export commitment of 60 percent, self-sufficiency in hydrochloric acid, and the desirability of producing value-added products. Re-evaluating these economic considerations was deemed beyond judicial review; the Court’s role was limited to assessing whether reasons were given, which they were.
On alleged violations of natural justice:
- Different hearing and deciding officers: The process involved meetings rather than formal judicial hearings, with full minutes recorded. The deciding officer demonstrably considered all objections, and no prejudice was shown.
- Delay between hearing and order: Absent evidence that circumstances changed or that the authority forgot material points, the delay did not vitiate the decision.
- Change in raw material description: The Court found the appellant always knew crushed bones would be used; the reference to bonemeal was a known error.
- Documents not supplied: The appellant’s representatives had viewed the documents during the hearing and did not request time to rebut them, so no prejudice arose.
Because the appellant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from any procedural irregularity, the Court concluded that the requirements of natural justice were satisfied. The Court declined to resolve the broader doctrinal debate on whether the same officer must hear and decide, as it was unnecessary to determine the present appeal.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED. The Supreme Court upheld the Central Government’s order permitting the Modis to establish the new ossein and gelatine undertaking. No costs were awarded.
Implications: The decision affirms that, in administrative approvals under the MRTP Act, courts will not interfere if (i) the order contains intelligible reasons and (ii) no demonstrable prejudice results from procedural deviations such as a change in decision-maker or delay. The ruling does not create new precedent but reinforces existing principles on reasoned orders and flexible application of natural justice.
S. Ranganathan, J.— This appeal has been preferred under Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (“the Act”) from an order of the Central Government (CG) dated 20-9-1988. By the said order the CG granted an application made by Respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the Modis”) under Section 22 of the Act for permission to establish an undertaking for the manufacture of ossein and gelatine in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner, which claims to be an association of ossein and gelatine manufacturers in India, made representations before the CG 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 contentions have been urged by Shri Divan in support of the appeal:
(a) The order dated 20-9-1988 is vitiated as it merely sets out the bald conclusions of the officer concerned. It is not a reasoned or well considered order.
(b) The appellant had pointed out that the grant of permission to Modis would be against public interest. It would completely cripple the small scale businesses of the members of the appellant association which, even earlier, had been functioning far below capacity due to insufficient supply of crushed bones. These objections had not been properly dealt with in the order.
(c) The order has been passed by one Shri Vijayaraghavan whereas a personal oral hearing in the matter had been given by one Shri S.S Khosla. This has resulted in the violation of the fundamental rule of natural justice that “he who hears must decide”.
(d) The hearing had taken place on 23-1-1986 while the final order was passed more than two and half years later. This, coupled with the change in personnel referred to above, has resulted in the denial of natural justice to the petitioner.
(e) Modis had stated in their application that bonemeal would be the raw material used by them but, later, they changed it into “crushed bones”. The appellant had no opportunity of meeting the new case.
(f) The representative of Modis had presented certain documents at the personal hearing but copies thereof had not been supplied to the appellant despite a grievance made by it the very next day.
3. The appellant'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.
4. We are unable to accept the appellant's contention that the impugned order is bald, unreasoned or cryptic and violates 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 SCC 141, (1984) 1 SCR 815( quoted at p. 622, para 2)
“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 matters before them by well-considered orders.”
The order of the Government is a detailed and elaborate one. It sets out the contentions and deals with them seriatim. The point made that existing units were already functioning below capacity due to insufficient supply of crushed bones and that the entry of the Modis into the arena would drive them out of business has not been overlooked. Only, as against this the Government has considered to be more weighty the economic advantages in granting the application of the Modis arising out of the circumstances: (a) that they would be setting up the industry in a backward area; (b) that they had categorically undertaken to export at least 60 per cent of their proposed production; (c) that since they would be producing their own hydrochloric acid, the availability of such acid to others will not be affected;' and (d) 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 not within the province of the courts to appraise the evidence or review the conclusion of the Government. The first branch of the argument of the counsel for the appellant, therefore, fails.
5. On 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 summarises and deals with all the important objections of the petitioners. This circumstance has not, therefore, caused any prejudice to the petitioners. The delay in the passing of the order also does not, in the above circumstances, vitiate 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 argument that the application of the Modis had referred to bonemeal as the raw material used and this was later changed to “crushed bones” is pointless because it is not disputed that all along the petitioners were aware that the reference to bonemeal was incorrect and that the Modis were going to use crushed bones in their project. The last contention that some documents were produced at the hearing by the Modis which the petitioners could not deal with effectively is also without force as, admittedly, the assessee's representatives were shown those documents but did not seek any time for considering them and countering their effect. There has, therefore, been, in fact, no prejudice to the petitioners. They have had a fair hearing and the Government's decision has been reached after considering all the pros and cons. We are unable to find any ground to interfere therewith.
6. There was some discussion before us on a larger question as to whether the requirements of natural justice can be said to have been complied with where the objections of parties are heard by one officer but the order is passed by another. Shri Salve, referring to certain passages in Local Government Board v. Alridge 1915 AC 120, Ridge v. Baldwin 1964 AC 40, (1963) 2 All ER 66, (1963) 2 WLR 3, Regina v. Race Relations Board, Ex parte Selvarajan (1975) 1 WLR 1686 and in de Smith's Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4th Edn., pp. 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 “institutional” decision or one taken by an officer specially empowered to do it. Shri Divan, on the other hand, pointed out that the majority judgment in Gullappalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC AIR 1959 SC 308, 1959 Supp 1 SCR 319 has disapproved of Alridge case 1915 AC 120 and that natural justice demands that the hearing and order should be by the same officer. This is a very interesting question and Alridge case 1915 AC 120 has been dealt with by Wade. We are of opinion that it is unnecessary to enter into a decision (sic discussion) of this issue for the purposes of the present case. Here the issue is one of grant of approval by the Government and not any particular officer statutorily designated. It is also perfectly clear on the records that the officer who passed the order has taken full note of all the objections put forward by the petitioners. We are fully satisfied, therefore, that the requirements of natural justice have been fulfilled in the present case.
7. For the reasons stated above, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Alert