- (1.) "As regards the locational angle, the representatives of the applicant company said that the very purpose of putting up the project at Nagda was to utilise Chlorine which was at present being produced in their Caustic Soda project at that place. They also stated that they would take all anti-pollution measures to the entire satisfaction of Central and State Governments. In this connection they stressed the point that their present project itself was an anti-pollution step inasmuch as it would utilise chlorine to some extent which was at present being let off in the atmosphere. Referring to the specific point made by the objector company, the representatives of the applicant company clarified that there would be no discharge of chemicals into water and, therefore, the question of pollution of drinking water did not rise. The proposal of the applicant company has been considered by the Government. It is felt that the objections against the proposal have been satisfactorily met by the applicant company. It is also particularly noted that the large Industrial Houses are eligible to take up the manufacture of the proposed item."
(2.) It is contended that reasonable opportunity was not given to the appellant to support the objections and the points raised in support of the objections have not been taken into consideration by the authority concerned. In Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1984) 1 SCR 815 AIR 1984 SC 160, this Court pointed out :- "We must, however, impress upon the Government that while disposing of applications under Ss. 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 people in administrative tribunals can be sustained only if the tribunals act fairly and dispose of the matters before them by well considered orders. The relevant material must be made available to the objectors because without it, they cannot possibly meet the claim or contentions of the applicants under Ss. 21, 22 and 23 of the MRTP Act. The refusal of the government to furnish such material to the objectors can amount to a denial of a resonable opportunity to the objectors. And denial of a reasonable opportunity to meet the other man's case is denial of natural justice."
(3.) Having heard learned counsel of both sides, we are inclined to agree that the appellant's objections have not been properly disposed of. In the two sets of objections raised by the appellant, several contentions were advanced. The impugned order does not notice all these objections and the conclusion that the objections have been fairly met, fails to satisfy us that all the objections were really taken into account, particularly when a few of them only have been specifically referred to. Since we are remitting the matter to the respondent for reconsideration, we do not propose to express any opinion which might prejudice either side. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is vacated and the matter shall go back to the Respondent No. 2 for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. There will be no order for costs. Order accordingly.;