A. K. Mittal v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. & Anr.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: V. D. Tulzapurkar
A. P. Sen
Judgment Date: 1986-03-07
Court Decision / Holding: The Court issued guidelines regulating the allotment of Maruti vehicles out of the 5% discretionary quota, restricting eligibility to defined categories (State entities, hospitals/charitable/educational institutions, certain individuals), with procedures including first-come-first-served and lottery in case of ties, and strict conditions (no resale for three years, no second allotment to the same person, etc.). The guidelines are to be in force for three years with a review and no determination of the other contentions was required. Interim orders were vacated, but deliveries under those orders stood, and parties were given liberty to apply.
Final Disposition: Guidelines for allotment of discretionary quota vehicles issued; interim orders vacated; orders to apply for three-year period with review; other contentions reserved.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A. K. Mittal

Respondents

Maruti Udyog Ltd.
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Soli J. Sorabjee
• Prashant Bhushan
• R. Karanjawala

Counsels for Respondents

• K. Parasaran
• The Attorney General
• Mrs. Vijay Rao
• T. V. S. N. Chari

Case Synopsis & Summary

This petition concerns the out-of-turn allotment of Maruti Udyog vehicles from a 5% discretionary quota. The petitioner sought a Maruti Car 800 but, due to a computer input error, was registered for a Maruti Truck; upon pointing out the discrepancy, respondents conceded and considered him for the discretionary quota. Ultimately, the petitioner was allotted Serial No. 8 under the discretionary quota. The respondents provided guidelines for allotment out of the 5% quota, identifying categories such as State entities (Article 12), hospitals/recognised charitable or educational institutions registered under statute or recognized under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and various individuals. The challenged classification asserted that it was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners contended that the method of categorization and the out-of-turn allotment could impair equality before the law and undermine fair procedure. In disposing of the petitions, the Court held that public interest warranted adherence to the proposed guidelines and that these guidelines would regulate allotment for three years with a review, leaving open the other contentions. Interim orders were vacated, but deliveries under interim orders stood, with liberty to apply.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 14Constitution of India, Article 12Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that the discretionary quota classifications—covering State entities, hospitals/educational/charitable bodies, and various individuals—were arbitrary and violated the equality principle under Article 14. They contended that the method of allocation, including out-of-turn promotions or direct benefits to certain groups, undermined equal protection and the predictability of the process. The misregistration incident and subsequent concession by respondents were examined against the backdrop of due process and equal treatment, urging a more transparent and non-discretionary approach than the challenged guidelines.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defended the move as a public-interest measure to ensure that Maruti vehicles are allocated to categories where the cars would serve public or national interests (e.g., State bodies, hospitals, armed forces, officials, and essential services). They argued that the guidelines provide structured criteria, a first-come-first-served principle with a lottery in tie cases, and safeguards (three-year validity with review) to balance efficiency, equity, and practicality. They asserted that the arrangement aims to avoid undue hardship while preventing arbitrary or unfair allocations.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

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 individual hardships etc. violative of Article 14 of the Constitution 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 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 588 ## _J_ and 11716 of 1984, 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. _D_ 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 respondents. 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: G H 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 Governments, 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 Rajya Sabha, ~ 'Speakers of State Legislative Assemblies, Chairpersons of ##### ~ State Legislative Councils, and Leaders of Opposition parties 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. 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; 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; A B #### c D E F 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 A 588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 i s.c.R. ###### 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 ###### a written undertaking from the allottee that he will not sell ....0 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 F G H 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 ]_ 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 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 **time.** A.K. MITIAL v. MARUTI UDYOG [TULZAPURKAR, J.] 589 #### -. 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, deliveries made pursuant to our interim orders will stand. - -1 Liberty to apply •. S.R. # ' A B