Supreme Court Partly Allows Writ Petitions Challenging Allotment of Resin Due to Arbitrary Discrimination. The State's Allotment Policy Found Lacking in Rational Basis, Violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from writ petitions filed by small scale industries engaged in the manufacture of resin and turpentine oil against the State of Jammu and Kashmir regarding the allotment of resin. The petitioners alleged that they were denied allotments while other respondents, who were not formally registered, received favorable treatment. The State defended its actions by citing its industrial policy aimed at balanced economic development. The court examined the basis of the allotments and found that the State had not adhered to its own policy, leading to arbitrary discrimination against the petitioners. The court emphasized that equality before the law does not permit arbitrary selection and that classifications must have a rational basis. Ultimately, the court partly allowed the petitions, quashing the allotments made to most respondents while upholding those made to five specific industries that met the policy criteria. The State was directed to make the necessary allotments to the petitioners and ordered to pay costs to each petitioner.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Violation of Equality - Allotment of resin to certain industries while denying to others - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 - The court found that the State failed to provide a reasonable basis for the allotments made to certain respondents while denying similar treatment to the petitioners, thus violating the principle of equality. Held that the arbitrary nature of the allotments warranted intervention (Paras 1-9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the allotments of resin made by the State were arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court partly allowed the petitions, quashing the allotments made to most respondents while upholding those made to five specific industries. The State was directed to make the necessary allotments to the petitioners and ordered to pay costs of Rs. 100 to each petitioner.

Law Points

  • Article 14
  • equality before the law
  • arbitrary discrimination
  • industrial policy
  • allotment of resources
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1981 LawText (SC) (02) 24

Writ Petition Nos. 3464-65, 5908 & 3231 of 1980

1981-02-16

Baharul Islam, R.S. Pathak, O. Chinnappa

1981 AIR 1001, 1981 SCR (2) 841, 1981 SCC (2) 270, 1981 SCALE (1) 314

S. N. Kacker, K. N. Bhatt, Surendara Raju, Soli J. Sorabjee, E. C. Agarwala, R. Satish, V. K. Pandita, L. N. Sinha, Altaf Ahmed, Y. S. Chitaley, Vineet Kumar, R. P. Bhatt, N. R. Chaudhary, P. R. Mridul, Naunit Lal, Anil Dev Singh, Ashok Grover, S. K. Bhattacharya, Suresh Sethi, Satish Vij, S. Balakrishnan

Om Prakash Sud, others

State of Jammu and Kashmir, others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging the allotment of resin by the State.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of the allotment orders and equitable allotment of resin.

Filing Reason

Allegations of arbitrary discrimination in the allotment process.

Issues

Whether the allotments were arbitrary and violated Article 14 Whether the State adhered to its industrial policy in making allotments

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that they were unfairly denied allotments while others received them without proper registration. State argued that allotments were made in accordance with its industrial policy for balanced development.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the principle of equality under Article 14 prohibits arbitrary discrimination and requires that classifications must have a rational basis related to the objectives of the law.

Judgment Excerpts

The rule of equality does not mean mathematical equality. No reasonable basis had been adopted in making the allotments in favour of the new allottees.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the allotment orders made by the State.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 14
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Quashing of FIR Set Aside — Supreme Court Reiterates Limits of Section 482 CrPC in Property Fraud Cases.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Rejection of Application Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in Suit for Damages. Court fees are not payable on a tentative claim at the initial stage when the exact valuation is to be adjudicated later, as per Section 7(i)...