Om Prakash Sud: Shamlal Kapoor: Pawan Kumar Sharma vs State Of J & K

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1981 Supreme(SC) 92

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, P. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.
(1) Om Prakash Sud etc.
Writ Petitioners Nos. 3464-65, 5908, 3231 of 1980,
D/- 16-2-1981.
(2) Shamlal Kapur,
(3) Pawan Kumar Sharma, Petitioner
Versus
State of J. and K. and others, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. N. Kackker, Sr. Advocate, M/s. K. N. Bhat and P. S. Sundara Raju, Advocates, for Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 3464-65 and 5908 of 1980, Mr. Soli J. Sorabji Sr. Advocate M/s. E. C. Agarwala, R. Satish and V. K. Pandita, Advocates, for Petitioner in W. P. No. 3231 of 1980, Mr. L. N. Sinha, Attorney General, Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Advocate (in all matters), for Respondent No. 1 in W. P. No. 3464-65 of 1980, Mr. Y. S. Chitaley, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vineet Kumar, Advocate, for Respondent No. 14 in W. P. Np. 3231 of 1980. and for Respondent No. 2 in W. P. No. 3464-65 of 1980, Mr. R. P. Bhatt Sr. Advocate, Mr. N. R. Choudhry, Advocate, for Respondent No. 4, in W. P. No. 3464 of 1980. Mr. P. R. Mridul Sr. Advocate and Mr. Naunit Lal Ad., for Respondents No. 7 in W. P. 3231 of 1980. and Respondent No. 5 in W. P. Nos. 3464-65 of 1980 Mr. Anil Dev Singh, Advocate and Mr. Ashok Grover, Advocate, for Respondent No. 15 in W. P. No. 3231 of 1980 and Respondent No. 3 in W. P. 3464-65 of 1980. Mr. S. K. Bhattacharya and Suresh Sethi,Advocates, for Respondent Nos. 6 and 12 in W. P. No. 3464-65 of 1980. Mr. Satish Vij, Advocate, for Respondent No, 15 in W. P. No. 3464-65 of 1980. Mr. S. Balakrishnan and Mr. S. K. Bhattacharya, Advocates, for Respondent No. 16 in W. P. 3231 of 1980.

Headnote:
Constitution Of India 1950 - Article 14 - Chir Forests - Turpentine Oil – Industries - Forest Product Extracted - Industrial Policy - Industries of which petitioners are partners are admittedly small scale industries for manufacture of resin and Turpentine oil - Industries of petitioners in Writ Petitions, were provisionally registered but revalidated for short periods - Industry of petitioner in Writ Petition, was provisionally registered, revalidation was applied for but was not granted - Industry of petitioner in Writ Petition was formally registered - Petitioners have alleged that stopped selling resin for last several years in view of establishment of factories in public and joint sectors and that was selling resin by public auction –Held, In Respondent No. 1 as well as other parties has taken reliance on their industrial policy statement as stated above – Court have already quoted relevant portions of State Industrial Policy Statement - Government have stated that they have considered all 110 applications including those of petitioners coming from industrialists of different parts – Court not unaware that rule of equality does not mean mathematical equality and that it permits of practical inequalities - But what is needed is that selection of quota seekers as in case in hand should have a rational relation to object sought to be achieved in industrial policy decision - In instant case, although State Government has taken reliance on State Industrial Policy decision referred to above, they do not appear to have followed it in practice, except in cases of five respondents referred to above - In fact no reasonable basis has been adopted in making allotments in favour of new allottees and denying allotments to petitioners – Appeal Partly Allowed.

Judgement

BAHARUL ISLAM, J.:- By these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioners have challenged the orders of the first respondent (the State of Jammu and Kashmir) allotting quotas of resin to respondents. According to the petitioners these orders denying similar treatment to them are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. The material facts in the four petitions are similar. The industries of which the petitioners are partners are admittedly small scale industries for the manufacture of resin and Turpentine oil. The industries of the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 3465 of 1980 and 3231 of 1980, were provisionally registered but revalidated for short periods. The industry of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3464 of 1980, was provisionally registered, revalidation was applied for but was not granted. The industry of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5904 of 1983 was formally registered. It appears that the petitioners were applying to the Government for allotment of resin as well as raw material for their industries but the Government referring to their policy decision of March, 20, 1978, refused to make any allotment of Oleo resin to them. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 3464 and 5904 of 1980 have alleged that they purchased raw-material from the open market and somehow managed their industries to run for a certain period.

3. Resin is admittedly a forest product extracted from "Chir trees". It has been alleged that only three States of India, namely, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir have Chir forests. The petitioners have alleged that the State of Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh stopped selling resin for the last several years in view of establishment of factories in public and joint sectors and that the State of Jammu and Kashmir was selling resin by public auction. Some time after October 1978 the State of Jammu and Kashmir, it has been further alleged, virtually created monopoly in favour of three existing industrial units and committed to supply them about 17,000, M. T. of resin for long time to come. There is a public sector unit in Jammu which consumes about 3,000 tons of resin per year. Several small scale industries, according to petitioners, were assured supply of resin even as late as 1979, notwithstanding the Governments aforesaid industrial policy. In such a situation, being unable to procure raw materials for their industries, the petitioners approached the relevant authorities including the Deputy Minister of Industry and the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir for allotment of raw-materials but to no avail. (For the sake of convenience we shall hereinafter refer only to the respondents and Annexure in W. P. No. 3231 of 1980). The petitioners further allege that while they were refused allotment of supply of raw-materials, respondent No. 1 made allotments to respondents Nos. 4 to 16 (hereinafter called "allottee respondents") although most of them were not even formally registered at the time of making the impugned orders of allotment.

The petitioners contend that in the circumstances they were adversely discriminated against while respondents Nos. 4 to 16 were favoured and as such the impugned orders are liable to be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. The impugned orders have been annexed as annexures N to Z-1. The letter of allotment (Annexure X) in favour of M/s. Sud Pine Industries (respondent No. 27) is in the following terms:-

"Sub : Supply of resin to M/s. Sud Pine Industries Kunwani for their factory at Talab Jammu.

Government Order No. 175 DIC/1980 dated 30-5-1980.

In partial modification of Government order No. 28 - DIC of 1979 dated 20-1-1975 sanction is accorded to the supply of crude (oleo) resin 700 tonnes per annum by the Forest Deptt. to M/s Sud Pine Industries for their factory at Kunjwani Talab Jammu on the terms and conditions specified in the above said order. The sup

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1981 Supreme(SC) 92

Cases Referred (1)