Case: Om Prakash Sud Etc. Etc Vs. State Of J &amp; K &amp; Ors. Etc. Etc

it insured for a sum of Rs. 6.80 lakhs. He obtained raw-material from the open market and was running his industry. Petitioner, Ravindra Dutt of M/s. Dinesh Resin and Turpentines in W.P. No. 3465 of 1980 alleges that his industry was provisionally registered on 25-10-1975 which was extended upto April, 1979. Letter of 31st May, 1979 shows that his industry was later on formally registered as a small unit. This factory was producing resin and turpentine out of the resin which he purchased from open auction He was approaching the Government from time to time to get requisite quantity of raw-materials but failed to get it.Petitioner, Shamlal Kapoor, Director of Jammu Resin Enterprises Private Limited, alleges that his industry was formally registered with the Government of J &K. He alleges that his industry was functioning for a long time and trying to get necessary quota of raw-materials from respondent No. 1. He was approaching the Government to get requisite quota. Sud Pine Industries, was provisionally registered on 10-3- 1978 and formally registered on 10-10-1978. It appears from Annexure N, in respect of respondent M/s Kashmir R &T Works (respondent No. 17), Annexure O in respect of M/s. Sun Shine R &T Industries (respondent No. 18), Annexure P in respect of M/s. Woolan Paints and Chemicals Scopore (respondent No. 19) Annexure Q in respect of M/s. Pine Wood Products Company (respondent No. 20), Annexure R in respect o f M/s. Haji Mast Ali Slaria (respondent No. 21), Annexure S in respect of M/s. Phyto Chemicals (respondent No. n 22), Annexure T in respect of M/s. New Himalayan Paints and Chemicals (respondent No. 23), Annexure U in respect of M/s. S . K. Chemical (respondent No. 24), Annexure V in respect of M/s. Rajindra R &T (respondent No. 25) and Annexure W in respect of M/s. Bharat Paints and Chemicals (respondent No. 26) that the allotments were made in their favour "from the date the unit is formally registered" which shows that industries were not even registered at the time of the impugned orders of this allotment. Respondent M/s. Rajindra R &T Industries, Udhampur, appears to stand on a different footing. He appear s to have fulfilled all the conditions required for allocation of resin in accordance with the policy of the State of J &K. The industry is an experienced one and the factory started production of resin and turpentine at Hoshiarpur since 1948. It is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and has long experience in the business including resin and turpentine since 1948. The industry set up a factory in 1970 in the rural industrial estate near Udhampur which is a backward area. The industry was provisionally registered in 1970 and formal registration was granted on 29-2-1974. It applied for adequate quantities of raw-materials and was allotted only 200 tons although it had been sanctioned 1500 per ton per annum since 1975. Respondent M/s. Sud Pine Industries, M/s. Kashmir R &T Works, Bakshi Resin &Turpentine and M/s. K. C. Soni Bakshi also appear to be on different footings. It appears from Annexures X and Y that the first two industries have already been formally registered. They are existing units having already started production. So far as respondent M/s Bakshi Resin and Turpentine is concerned, it had already set up factory and started production. It was provisionally registered as early as 1976 and the unit is located in a backward area. So far as respondent K. C. Soni Resin &Turpentine is concerned, it was formally registered on 19-4-79. This unit is located in a remote backward area of the State. 8. "Equality 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 classification 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 substantial distinction, a just and reasonable relation to the objects sought to be attained and cannot be made arbitrarily and without any substantial basis.. ........ (See State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali. The classification must not be arbitrary but be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out. Those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the law. In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others, and (2) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct things and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between them. We are not unaware that the rule of equality does not mean mathematical equality and that it permits of practical inequalities. But what is needed is that the selection of quota seekers as in the case in hand should have a rational relation 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. 9. In the instant case, although the State Government has taken reliance on the State Industrial Policy decision referred to above, they do not appear to have followed it in practice, except in the cases of the five respondents referred to above. In fact no reasonable basis has been adopted in making the allotments in favour of the new allottees and denying allotments to the petitioners.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]They have stated, and their statement is corroborated by the documents, that there is preponderance of industries in the Jammu region and industries of the petitioners as well as respondents No. 4 to 16 were also functioning in the same region. Respondent No. 1 has not explained as to how and on what basis, if any, the allotments were made by the impugned orders in favour of the new allottees whose industries were located in the Jammu region"Equality 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 classification 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 substantial distinction, a just and reasonable relation to the objects sought to be attained and cannot be made arbitrarily and without any substantial basis.. ........ (See State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali. The classification must not be arbitrary but be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out. Those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the law. In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others, and (2) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct things and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus betweene are not unaware that the rule of equality does not mean mathematical equality and that it permits of practical inequalities. But what is needed is that the selection of quota seekers as in the case in hand should have a rational relation 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 14In the instant case, although the State Government has taken reliance on the State Industrial Policy decision referred to above, they do not appear to have followed it in practice, except in the cases of the five respondents referred to above. In fact no reasonable basis has been adopted in making the allotments in favour of the new allottees and denying allotments to the petitioners.