Supreme Court of India
ASHOK KUMAR MITTALversusMARUTI UDYOG LTD, & ANR.
- Citation
- 1986 INSC 30
- Decided
- 7 March 1986
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- V D TULZAPURKAR
Holding
The allocation of Maruti vehicles from the manufacturer’s 5% discretionary quota is constitutionally valid if limited to the categories enumerated by the Court and applied in accordance with the prescribed conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Mittal, applied for an allotment of a Maruti 800 car but due to a computer error his application was recorded for a Maruti truck; the company agreed to consider his case under the manufacturer's discretionary 5% quota. In the course of correspondence, Maruti Udyog disclosed its existing practice of allocating vehicles from this quota to categories such as defence, judiciary, constitutional office‑holders, charitable institutions and individuals facing hardship. The petitioner challenged this classification as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, arguing that the discretionary allocation lacked a rational basis. The Supreme Court examined whether the guidelines served a legitimate public interest and whether they were applied uniformly to the categories specified. The Court held that the allocation scheme, if confined to the enumerated categories and subject to the conditions laid down (no resale for three years, single allotment, first‑come‑first‑served, etc.), did not breach Article 14. Accordingly, the Court issued detailed guidelines for the use of the 5% quota for a period of three years, left other contentions open, vacated the interim orders, and disposed of the writ petitions.
Issues considered
- Whether the discretionary allocation of Maruti vehicles from the 5% quota to specified categories violates Article 14 of the Constitution
- Whether the guidelines for allocation constitute arbitrary classification
- Whether the allocation scheme serves a legitimate public interest
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 12, s. Article 14
- Income Tax Act, 1961s. Section 80G
Subjects
Article 14discretionary quotapublic interestallocation guidelinesMaruti Udyogconstitutional lawequal protectionwrit petitionvehicle allotment
Judgment
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,
G
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]
H
5t!6 SUPKllME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 s.c.R.
A (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.)
B 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.
K, Parasaran, Attorney General, Mrs. Vijay Rao and
T.V.S.N, Chari for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
D
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
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
G 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. ·
H
A.K. MITTAL v. MARUTI UDYOG [TULZAPURKAR, J.] 587
A
""' 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 B
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 c
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 Rajya Sabha,
~ 'Speakers of State Legislative Assemblies, Chairpersons of
~ State Legislative Councils, and Leaders of Opposition parties D
in Parliament and in the State Legislatures.
d. The Chief Justice and other Judges of the Supreme
Court and the Chief Justice and other Judges of the High
Courts.
E
e. Public servants not below the rank of Additional
Secretary to the Government of India.
.. f. Serving members of the Armed Forces not below the
rank of Brigadier in the Army or equivalent rank in the Navy
., or the Air Force; F
g. manufacturers of component parts for utilisation in
the manufacture of Maruti vehicles. The number of this
category will be restricted to ten per year;
h. employees of Maruti Udyog Ltd., limited to fifty G
- -~ vehicles per year;
' '
i. individuals in recognition of their outstanding
humanitarian services to the society or to the Nation. The
number in this category will be restricted to ten per year;
H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 i s.c.R.
A
j. individuals cases of undue hardship on humanitarian)...,
grounds. The number in this category will be restricted to
five per year.
IV, Error category i.e. individuals whose applications
for regular allotment could not be registered on account of
B any genuine error.
The following conditions will be strictly observed '· ,,_
in the allotment of vehicles to any organisation/institution,
person or individual in any of the aforesaid categories:
c a. There will be no resale of t:he vehicle by the
allottee for a period of three years.
This condition will be inserted in the order of
allotment issued in favour of the allottee, Maruti Udyog
Ltd. will further obtain before giving delivery of the vehicle
0 a written undertaking from the allottee that he will not sell ....-
the vehicle for a period of three years from the date of
delivery.
b. There will be no second allotment out of the
manufacturers' quota to the same individual.
E
c. In each of the aforesaid categories allotment, as far
as possible, will be made on first come first served basis in
accordance with the date of the receipt of the application for
allotment out of the aforesaid manufacturers' quota. In cases
where more than one application is received . on the same day 1
F
from individuals in the same category, priority of allotment
in such cases will be determined by draw of lots under proper
supervision.
It is clarified that allotments made for military/
paramilitary purposes and against firm export orders for
G
supply outside of India, will not be included within 5% of the"
Manufacturers' quota.
These guidelines will be in force for a period of three
years and will be subject to review taking into consideration
the prevailing circumstances which may exist at that point of
H
time.
A.K. MITIAL v. MARUTI UDYOG [TULZAPURKAR, J.] 589
A
-. In view of the aforesaid guidelines, we think, it is
unnecessary for us to determine the various submissions and
contentions raised on behalf of the parties which are however
left open.
All general interim orders are vacated. However, B
deliveries made pursuant to our interim orders will stand.
- -1 Liberty to apply •.
S.R.
'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 14"Sign in to search