SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(SC) 92

R.S.PATHAK, BAHARUL ISLAM, O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY
Om Prakash Sud: Shamlal Kapoor: Pawan Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of J & K – Respondent


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





















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top