Reasoned administrative order and fair hearing upheld where objections were considered and no prejudice from procedural complaints was shown.

A reasoned administrative order granting permission for an undertaking was upheld because it dealt with the objections seriatim, weighed the competing economic considerations, and satisfied the requirement of reasons. No breach of natural justice was found: the change of officer caused no prejudice, the delay did not invalidate the decision absent a shown change in circumstances, the raw-material objection was immaterial because the true position was known, and the document-supply complaint failed where the materials had been shown. The permission was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned governmental order granting permission to establish the undertaking was vitiated for want of reasons; (ii) whether the proceedings suffered from breach of natural justice, including hearing by one officer and decision by another, delay in disposal, alleged change in the raw material basis, and non-supply of documents.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned governmental order granting permission to establish the undertaking was vitiated for want of reasons.

Analysis: The order was examined as a whole and found to be detailed and elaborate, with the objections set out and dealt with seriatim. The competing considerations were weighed, including the alleged impact on existing units and the economic factors supporting approval. The requirement of a reasoned order was held to have been satisfied.

Conclusion: The order was not vitiated for absence of reasons.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings suffered from breach of natural justice, including hearing by one officer and decision by another, delay in disposal, alleged change in the raw material basis, and non-supply of documents.

Analysis: No prejudice was found from the change of officer because the proceedings were informal meetings with recorded minutes and the deciding officer considered the objections and materials. The delay was held not to invalidate the order in the absence of any demonstrated intervening change of circumstances or omission to consider relevant aspects. The alleged change from bonemeal to crushed bones was treated as immaterial because the petitioners were aware of the true position. The complaint regarding documents also failed because the representatives had been shown the materials and did not seek time to respond. On the records, a fair hearing was held to have been afforded.

Conclusion: No breach of natural justice was established.

Final Conclusion: The grant of permission was upheld and no ground for interference was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: A reasoned administrative order satisfying the requirement of fair consideration will not be interfered with in the absence of demonstrated prejudice, and procedural objections will not invalidate the decision where the relevant objections and materials were in fact considered.

---