Natural justice in MRTP proceedings requires disclosure of material and reasoned orders, though sufficient support may still sustain the decision.

Proceedings under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 require fair, well-considered orders supported by adequate reasons. The Court disapproved an impugned governmental order for lack of proper reasoning and stressed that material relied upon should be disclosed to objectors so they can meet the applicant's case; withholding it may amount to denial of a reasonable opportunity. However, on the material before it, the Court found sufficient support for the order and declined interference, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned governmental order was liable to interference for want of adequate reasons, and whether refusal to furnish relevant material to objectors amounted to denial of natural justice in proceedings under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.

Analysis: The order was disapproved for its lack of proper reasons, and the Court emphasised that applications under Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 should be decided by fair and well-considered orders. It further observed that the material relied upon should be made available to objectors, since withholding it may prevent them from meeting the applicant's case and may amount to denial of a reasonable opportunity.

Conclusion: The impugned order was not interfered with, as the Court found sufficient material to support it, and the appeal was dismissed.

---