Administrative authorities must provide specific reasons for their decisions, and the reasons for rejection must be relevant and germane to the applicable legal provisions.

( 1 ) IT is high time the administrative authorities exercising powers under statutory provisions should realise that whether they are issuing a show cause notice why a certain action should not be taken or are communicating the reasons for decisions it is not sufficient merely to recite the language of the statutory provisions but it is also necessary that the actual facts on which action is proposed to be taken or on which the decision is based should also be stated or indicated. The truth of this observation is borne out by this case in relation to section 49 (3) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Ad. 1958 (The Act), and Rule 86 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959.

( 2 ) THE facts out of which the question arose may be briefly stated. The Indian company, petitioner No. 1, and the foreign company, petitioner No. 2, entered into a collaboration agreement which was approved by the Government of India from 1961 to 1971 only. The proprietory trade mark "hella" of petitioner No. 2 has been registered in India and as a result of the collaboration agreement the petitioner No. 1 has been using it in respect of goods manufactured by it in pursuance of the collaboration agreement. After the colloboration agreements ceased to be in force, the second petitioner agreed to licence the first petitioner to use the said trade mark "hella" in relation to the goods to be manufactured by the petitioner in pursuance of the quondam collaboration agreement. The two petitioners applied to the Registrar of Trade Marks under the provisions of sections 48 and 49 of the Act for the recordal of the first petitioner as the registered user in respect of the said trademark of petitioner No. 2 in September October, 1971. The application was in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 49. It was forwarded by the Registrar of Trade Marks to the Central Government under section 49 (2 ). The consideration of the powers of the Central Government under sub-section (3) of section 49 being material for the decision of this case, section 43 (3) is reproduced below :

" (3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (2), the Central Government, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and to the interests of the general public, and the development of any industry, trade or commerce in India, may direct the Registrar (a) to refuse the application; or (b) to accept the application either absolutely or subject to any conditions, restrictions or limitations which the Central Government may think proper to impose : Provided that no direction for refusing the application or for its acceptance conditionally shall be made unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard. "

( 3 ) THE meaning of the expression "opportunity of being heard" used in section 49 (3) is to be spelt out by reading it with rule 86 (1) of the Rules which is as below :

" (1) Before the Central Government decides to direct the Registrar to refuse an application for registration as registered user or to accept the application subject to any conditions, restrictions or limitations, it shall give notice thereof in writing to the applicant through the Registrar. The notice shall state the grounds on which the Central Government proposes to issue such direction and shall inform the applicant that they are entitled to be. heard. "the notice which was actually given under Rule 86 (1) of the Rules on 3rd January, 1976, stated that "the Government of India proposes to refuse the above application on the grounds that having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the registration as registered user sought by the applicants is not in the interest of the general public and the development of indigenous industry in India". Since the notice did not state the facts which constituted public interest or the interest of the development of indigenous industry in India, but merely recited the language of section 49 (3), the petitioners wrote to the Governme