Raman Mohan Gautam vs Union Of India And Ors.
1989 Latest Caselaw 604 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Wad, J.

1. "13. The petitioner apprehends that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 jointly and severally had acted in omission and commission so that the Maruti car allotted to the petitioner on 2.2.1987 was delivered to some other persons whom the respondents wished to oblige. In the alternative, the petitioner apprehends that despite the respondents assertions to the effect that a seniority list is prepared on the basis of the date of payment, this list was not adhered to and persons below the petitioner (i e. persons who had made full payment after 2.2.1987 were delivered their cars prior to the petitioner in order to oblige and curry favor which such persons. The petitioner believes that even green Maruti cars (which colour choice had been added by the petitioner to his initial colour choice of brown and blue on the advice of respondent No. 3) have been delivered by respondent No. 2 through respondent No. 3 and its other Agents/Dealers in Delhi to customers who had made full payment after the petitioner." "14. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs the petitioner further states that he was informed by respondent No. 3 (and shown the relevant record) that the green Maruti car allotted to the petitioner had been dispatched to respondent No. 3 vide release order No. 1182 dated 28.2.1987. Accordingly, even if it is assumed that the petitioner was not allotted a specific car on 2.2.1987, this allotment and delivery was effected on 28.2.1987 as per the respondents own records. The petitioner further states that respondent No. 3 had shown that this release order contained nine cars. Out of these eight cars were delivered in March 1987 but at the old rate i.e. at the price paid by the petitioner on 2.2.1987." "while we do not for a moment doubt that every action of the State or an instrumentality of the State must be informed by reason and that, in appropriate cases, actions uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary in proceedings under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution, we do not consider Article 14 as a charter for Judicial review of State actions and to call upon the State to account for its actions in its manifold activities by stating reasons for such actions".