vil Appeal No 27NM of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 20988 of the Government 817 Of India Ministry of Industry Department of Company Af fairs Shastri Bhavan New Delhi in No 25185 M II
Anil B Divan Nitin Thakkar PH Parekh and section Dogra for the Appellant
Anil Dev Singh H Sharma Sushma Suri Harish Salve Mohini Sud and Praveen Kumar for the Respondents
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 CG dated 20988
By the said order the CG 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 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
The following contentions have been urged by Sri Divan in support of the appeal a The order dated 20988 is vitiated as it merely sets out the bald conclusion 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 business 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 Sri Vijayaraghavan whereas a personal oral hearing in the matter had been given by Sri SS Khosla
This has resulted in the violation of the fundamental rule of natural justice that he who hears must decide
818 d The hearing had taken place on 23186 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
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
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  where this Court reaffirmed the following observations made in the Bombay Oil case  We must however impress upon the Government that while disposing of applications under Sections 21 22 and 23 of the  it must give good reasons in support of its order and not merely state its bald conclusion
The faith of the people in administrative tribu nals 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 819 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 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
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 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 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 author ity passing the order has forgotten to deal with any partic ular 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 peti tioners 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 consid ering them and countering their effect
There has there fore 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
There was some discussion before us on a larger question as to whether the requirements of natural justice can be said to have been 820 complied with where the objections of parties are beard by one officer but the order is passed by another
Sri Salve referring to certain passages in Local Government Board vs Alridge  Ridge vs Baldwin   Regina vs Race Relations Board Ex parte Selvarajan 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 vs APSR TC 1959 Supp 1 SCR 3 19 has disapproved of Al ridge s case and that natural justice demands that the hearing and order should be by the same officer
This is a very interesting question and Alridge s case has been dealt with by Wade Administrative Law 6th Edition at pp
507 et seq We are of opinion that it is unnecessary to enter into a decision 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 desig nated
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
For the reasons stated above the appeal stands dismissed
No costs
GN Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act V of 1898 embodies the general law as to the joinder of charges and lays down a rule that for every distinct offence there should
be a 589 separate charge and every such charge should be tried separately
No doubt the object of section 233 is to save the accused from being embarrassed in his defence if distinct offences are lumped together in one charge or in separate charges and are tried together but the Legislature has engrafted certain exceptions upon this rule contained in sections 234 235 236 and 239
Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction more offences than one are committed by the same person he may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence
The prosecution story showed that the offence of extortion committed on a particular day was one of a series of acts connected with the offence of murder and attempt to murder committed on their previous day in such a way as to form one transaction
The incidents related in the evidence left no doubt that from the moment the accused a Reserve Inspector of Police started from the Police State he committed a series of acts involving killing injuring people unlawfully confining others and extorting money from one of them and therefore the series of acts attributed to him constituted one transaction in the course of which two offences which were alleged to be distinct were committed
Held that under the circumstances the case fell within the purview of section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and such joinder was permitted by the exception enacted in that section
Where the two Judges of the High Court on appeal are divided in their opinion as to the guilt of the accused and the third Judge to whom reference is made agrees with one of them who is upholding the conviction and sentence it is desirable as a matter of convention though not as a matter of strict law that ordinarily the extreme penalty should not be imposed