This, companypled with the change in personnel referred to above, has resulted in the denial of natural justice to the petitioner.
The order bears testimony to the fact that the pros and companys have been fully companysidered and a decision taken.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.9.88 of the Government Of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Company Af fairs, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi in No.
It is number within the province of the Courts to appraise the evidence or review the companyclusion of the Government.
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.
Only, as against this the Government has companysidered 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 of their proposed produc tion c that since they would be producing their own hydrochloric acid, the availability of such acid to others will number be affected and d that the short supply of the raw material crushed bones may number be a companystraint for permitting the manufacture of value added products like Ossein and Gelatine.
27 NM of 1989.
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.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellants companytentions broadly fall under two heads one, the denial of natural justice and two, the failure to pass a reasoned order.
It is true that the order has been passed by an officer different from the one who heard the parties.
2/51/85 M II.
They were in the nature of meetings and full minutes were recorded of all the points discussed at each meeting.
Anil B. Divan, Nitin Thakkar, P.H. Parekh and S. Dogra for the Appellant.
By the said order the C.G. granted an application made by respondent No.
It will be companyvenient to deal with the latter objection first.
Anil Dev Singh, H. Sharma, Sushma Suri, Harish Salve, Mohini Sud and Praveen Kumar for the Respondents.
These objections having been rejected and the application granted by the said order, the aggrieved petitioner has preferred this appeal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. 1.
This appeal has been preferred under section 55 of the Monopolies Restrictive Trade Practices Act the Act from an order of the Central Government G. dated 20.9.88.
