OM PRAKASH SUD ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF J & K & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 841 · Decided: 16-02-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
.. 
' 
841 
OM PRAKASH SUD ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF J & K & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
February 16, 1981 
[R. S. PATHAK, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India 1950, 
Article 14-Allotment of 
resin-Industrial 
pa/icy decision of State-Object of-Balanced economic and regional deve-
lopment of State--Selection of quota seekers-Article 14 wltetlier violated. 
The petitioners in their writ petitions to this Court alleged that they were 
C 
carrying on small scale industries for the manufacture of resin and turpentine 
oil and that they applied to the Government for allotment of resin for their 
industries but the Government referring to their policy decision of March 20, 
1978 refused to make any allotment, "'1d that they purchased raw material 
from the open market and managed to run their industries. They 
further 
alleged that while they were refused allotment of supply of 
raw-materials, 
the State, respondent No. 1 made allotments to respondent 
nos. 
4 to 16 
D 
although most of them were not even formally resistered 
at 
the 
time of 
111llking tho impugned orders of allotment and that they were consequently 
adversely discriminated against, while respondent nos. 4 to 16 were favoured 
and as such the impugned orders of allotment were liable to be struck down 
as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 
The State, respondent 
No. 1 contested the writ 
petition, 
denied 
the 
E 
material allegations of the petitioners and alleged th<>t the allocations 
were 
made in conformity with the State Industrial Policy decision of securing the 
balanced economic and regional development of the State: that there wa~ a 
preponderance of industries in the Jammu Region, and that the 
industries 
of the petitioners as well as respondent nos. 4 t'o 16 were also functioning 
in that region. 
Allotments of resin were made districtwise, 110 applications 
were received and considered and aUotment was made to respondents nos. 4 
F 
to 16. 
On the question whether the orders Of the 1st respondent allotting quotas 
of resin to respondent nos. 4 to 16 were arbitrary and violative of Article 14 
of the Constitution. 
HELD: l(i) Respondent No. 1 has not explained as to bow and on 
what basis if any, the allotments were made by the impugned orders in 
favour of the new allottees respondent nos. 4 to 16 whose industries were 
located in the Jammu region. [847 CJ 
(ii) Although the State Government has taken reli•nce 
on 
the 
State 
G 
" 
Industrial Policy decision, it does not appear to have followed it in practice, 
' 
except in the cases of five respondents. No reasonable basi1 
bad 
been 
H 
adopted in making the allotments in favour of the new allottoes and denying 
the allotments to tho petitionol'I. [849 E-FJ 
842 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
2. The rule of equality does not mean mathematical equality. It permits 
of practical 
inequalities. 
What is needed is that the 
selection of quota 
seckeJS as in the instant case should have a rational rela•tion to the 
object 
sought to be achieved in the industrial policy decision of the State. If the 
selection or differentiation is arbitrary and lacks a 
rational 
basis it offends 
Article 14. [849 DJ 
B 
3. "Equaolity before the Law" or "equal protection of the laws'' within 
the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India means absence Of 
any arbitrary discrimination by the law or in. their administration. No undue 
favour to one or hostile discrimination to another should be shown. A classi· 
fication is reasonable when it is not an arbitrary 
selection 
but 
rests 
on 
differences pertinent to the subject in 
respect 
of which the classification is 
made. The classification permissible must be based on some real and subs-
C 
tantial distinction, a just and reasonable relation to the objects sought to be 
attained and cannot be made arbitrary and without any substantial basis. 
[848 H-849 A] 
D 
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali, [1952] SCR 284 referred to. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 3464-65, 5908 
& 
3231 of 1980. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution) 
S. N. Kacker, K. N. Bhatt and Surendara Raju for the Petitioners in 
W. P. Nos. 3464-65/80 and 5908/80. 
Soli J. Sorabjee, E. C. Agarwala, R. Satish and V. K. Pandita for 
E 
the Petitioner in WP 3231/80. 
L. N. Sinha, Att Genl and Altaf Ahmed fur R. 1. in WPs 3464-
65/80. 
Y. S. Chitaley and Vineet Kumar for R. 14 in WP 3231/80 and 
for R. 2 in WPs 3464-65 /

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