ASHOK KUMAR MITTAL versus MARUTI UDYOG LTD, & ANR.

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 585 · Decided: 07-03-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

585 
A 
ASHOK KUMAR MI1TAL 
v. 
MARUTI UDYOG LTD, & ANR. 
MARCH 7, 1986 
B 
[V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND A.P. SEN, JJ.] 
Justice in Public Interest - Power of the Supreme Court 
to issue directions or orders -
Out-of-turn allotment of 
Maruti Cars out of manufacturer's discretionary quota of 5% to 
several categories like defence, VIPs, judiciary including 
lawyers etc. - Whether the method adopted, namely (a) for the 
C· 
promotion of connnercial interest of the company; (b) for the 
promotion of public interest; and (c) avoidance of undue indi-
vidual hardships etc. violative of Article 14 of the Constitu-
tion and arbitrary - Guidelines ·by the Supreme Court. 
The petitioner applied for allotment of ''Maruti Car 800" 
D 
and due to an error of the computer his name was not included 
for the allotment of ''Maruti 800" but for ''Maruti Truck"~ When 
the petitioer pointed out the discrepency the error was 
accepted by the respondents who however, agreed to consider 
the case of 
the petitioner for allotment out of 
the 
manufacturers' discretionary quota of 5%. Accordingly, the . E 
petitioner was alloted Serial No.8 under the discretionary 
quota. In the course of certain correspondence that ensued 
between the petitioner and the respondent, the respondents 
indicated the usual guidelines adopted in the allotment of the 
car out of the manufacturers' discretionary quota to defence 
forces, 
judiciary, 
Constitutional 
heads, 
MPs 
etc. 
The 
F 
petitioner has challenged such a classification as arbitrary 
and violative of the provisions of the Article 14 of the 
Constitution. 
Disposing of the petitions, 
HELD : The interest of justice would be met, if the 
allotment 
of 
Maruti 
vehicles 
out 
of 
manufacturers' 
discretionary quota is made in favour of the named categories 
specified in the order and subject to strict observance of the 
conditions indicated therein. (586 E-F] 
G 
H 
A 
B 
5t!6 
SUPKllME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 1 s.c.R. 
(The Court ordered that the guidelines would be in force 
for a period of three years and will be subject to review 
later taking into consideration the prevailing circumstances 
which may exist at that point of time. Applying non-liquet for 
the present, the Court left open the' several contentions 
raised in the petitions.) 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 
and 11716 of 1984, 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 588 J
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
Soli J, Sorabji, Prashant Desai and R. N, Karanjawala 
C 
for the Petitioners. 
D 
K, 
Parasaran, Attorney General, Mrs. 
Vijay Rao and 
T.V.S.N, Chari for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
TULZAPURKAR, J, We have heard Mr. Soli J, Sorabjee, Mr. 
Prashant llhushan and Mr. R. Karanjawala for the petitioners 
and the learned Attorney-General, on behalf of the respon-
dents. Various submissions were made on behalf of the parties. 
After consideration discussion of the various proposals and 
E 
suggestions made by parties and after having given our anxious 
and deep consideration to the matter it is ordered that in 
public interest the following guidelines should regulate the 
allotment of Maruti vehicles out of the manufacturerE' quota -) 
of 5 per cent. · 
F 
The 
allotment 
of 
Maruti 
vehicles 
out 
of 
the 
G 
H 
manufacturers' quota of five per cent will be made in favour 
of the following categories only: 
I. 
Any 
organisation/ institution 
coming 
within 
the 
definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of 
India. 
II. Any hospital or recognised charitable organisatio1. 
or educational institutions registered or incorporated under. 
a statute or having recognition under Section BO-{; of the 
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. · 
A.K. MITTAL v. MARUTI UDYOG [TULZAPURKAR, J.] 
587 
""' 
III. Individuals 
a. An individual suffering from physical handicap so as 
to render him incapable of using public transport would be 
eligible for allotment provided his income together with the 
income of his or her spouse or his or her guardian does not 
exceed Rs. 60,000 per year. 
b. The President of India, Vice-President of India, 
Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State in the Union Cabinet and 
Governors of States and Cabinet Ministers in State Govern-
ments, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, the 
Chief Election Commissioner, 
the Auditor and Comptroller 
General of India and the Attorney General of India. 
· 
c. The Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha, 
the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.