{"id":270642,"date":"1981-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1981-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981"},"modified":"2016-01-01T05:58:29","modified_gmt":"2016-01-01T00:28:29","slug":"om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981","title":{"rendered":"Om Prakash Sud Etc. Etc vs State Of J & K & Ors. Etc. Etc on 16 February, 1981"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Om Prakash Sud Etc. Etc vs State Of J & K & Ors. Etc. Etc on 16 February, 1981<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1001, 1981 SCR (2) 841<\/div>\n
Author: B Islam<\/div>\n
Bench: Islam, Baharul (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nOM PRAKASH SUD ETC. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF J & K & ORS. ETC. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/02\/1981\n\nBENCH:\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\nBENCH:\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\nPATHAK, R.S.\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1981 AIR 1001\t\t  1981 SCR  (2) 841\n 1981 SCC  (2) 270\t  1981 SCALE  (1)314\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution of  India 1950,  Article  14-<\/a>Allotment  of\nresin-Industrial policy decision of State-Object of-Balanced\neconomic and  regional\tdevelopment  of\t State-Selection  of\nquota seekers-Article 14<\/a> whether violated.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The petitioners  in their\twrit petitions to this Court\nalleged that  they were\t carrying on  small scale industries\nfor the\t manufacture of\t resin and  turpentine oil  and that\nthey applied  to the  Government for  allotment of resin for\ntheir industries  but  the  Government\treferring  to  their\npolicy decision\t of March  20,\t1978  refused  to  make\t any\nallotment, and\tthat they  purchased raw  material from\t the\nopen market  and  managed  to  run  their  industries.\tThey\nfurther alleged\t that while  they were\trefused allotment of\nsupply of  raw-materials, the  State, respondent  No. I made\nallotments to  respondent nos.\t4 to  16 n  although most of\nthem were not even formally registered at the time of making\nthe  impugned\torders\tof  allotment  and  that  they\twere\nconsequently   adversely    discriminated   against,   while\nrespondent nos.\t 4 to  16 were\tfavoured  and  as  such\t the\nimpugned orders of allotment were liable to be struck down \"\nviolative of Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution of India.\n     The  State,   respondent  No.   1\tcontested  the\twrit\npetition, denied the material allegations of the petitioners\nand alleged  that the  allocations were\t made in  conformity\nwith the  State Industrial  Policy decision  of securing the\nbalanced economic and regional development of the State that\nthere was a preponderance of industries in the Jammu Region,\nand that  the industries  of  the  petitioners\tas  well  as\nrespondent nos.\t 4 to  16  were\t also  functioning  in\tthat\nregion. Allotments  of resin  were  made  districtwise,\t 110\napplications were  received and considered and allotment was\nmade to respondents nos. 4 to 16.\n     On\t the   question\t whether   the\torders\tof  the\t 1st\nrespondent allotting quotas of resin to respondent nos. 4 to\n16 were\t arbitrary  and\t violative  of\tArticle\t 14<\/a>  of\t The\nConstitution.\n^\n     HELD :  1(i) Respondent  No. 1  has not explained as to\nhow and\t on what  basis if  any, the allotments were made by\nthe  impugned\torders\tin   favour  of\t the  new  allottees\nrespondent nos. 1 to 16 whose industries were located in the\nJammu region. [847 C]\n     (ii) Although  the State  Government has taken reliance\non the\tState Industrial Policy decision, it does not appear\nto have followed it in practice, except in the cases of five\nrespondents. No\t reasonable basis had been adopted in making\nthe allotments\tin favour  of the  new allottees and denying\nthe allotments to the petitioners. [84913-F]\n842\n     2. The  rule of  equality does  not  mean\tmathematical\nequality. It  permits of  practical  inequalities.  What  is\nneeded is  that the  selection of  quota seekers  as in\t the\ninstant case  should have  a rational relation lo the object\nsought lo  be achieved\tin the industrial policy decision of\nthe State.  If the selection or differentiation is arbitrary\nand lacks a rational basis it offends Article 14.<\/a> [849 D]\n     3. \"Equality  before the  Law\" or\t\"equal protection of\nthe  laws`'   within  the  meaning  of\tArticle\t 14<\/a>  of\t the\nConstitution  of   India  means\t absence  of  any  arbitrary\ndiscrimination by  the law  or in  their administration.  No\nundue favour  to one  or hostile  discrimination to  another\nshould be  shown. A  classification is reasonable when it is\nnot  an\t  arbitrary  selection\t but  rests  on\t differences\npertinent  to\tthe  subject   in  respect   of\t which\t the\nclassification is  made. The classification permissible must\nbe based  on some  real and  substantial distinction, a just\nand reasonable relation to the objects sought to be attained\nand cannot  be made  arbitrary and  without any\t substantial\nbasis. [848 H-849 A]\n     State of  West Bengal  v. Anwar  Ali<\/a>,  [19521  SCR\t 284\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 3464-65, 5908
\n& 3231 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
\t   (Under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitution)
\n     S. N.  Kacker, K.\tN. Bhatt  and Surendara Raju for the
\nPetitioners in W. P. Nos 3464-65\/80 and 5908\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     Soli J.  Sorabjee, E.  C. Agarwala, R. Satish and V. K.
\nPandita for the Petitioner in WP 3231,\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     L. N.  Sinha, Att.\t Genl. and  Altaf Ahmed for R. 1. in
\nWPs 3464 65\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     Y. S. Chitaley and Vineet Kumar for R. 14 in WP 3231\/80
\nand for R. 2 in WPs 3464-65\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     R. P. Bhatt and N. R. Chaudhary for R. 4 in WP 3464\/80.
\n     P. R.  Mridul and Naunit Lal for R. 7 in WP 3231\/80 and
\nfor R. 2 in WP 3464-65\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     Anil Dev Singh and Ashok Grover for R. 15 in WP 3231\/80
\nand R. 3 in WPs 3464-65\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     S. K.  Bhattacharya and  Suresh Sethi for R R. 6 and 12
\nin WP 3464 65\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     Satish Vij for R. 15 in WP 3464-3465\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     S. Balakrishnan  and S. K. Bhattacharya for R. 16 in WP
\nNo. 3231\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     BAHARUL ISLAM, J.-BY these writ petitions under Article
\n32<\/a> of  the Constitution\t the petitioners have challenged the
\norders of the
\n843<\/span>
\nfirst respondent  (the State of Jammu and Kashmir) allotting
\nquotas of resin to respondents. According to the petitioners
\nthese orders denying similar treatment to them are arbitrary
\nand violative of Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
     2.\t The  material\tfacts  in  the\tfour  petitions\t are
\nsimilar.  The\tindustries  of\twhich  the  petitioners\t are
\npartners are  admittedly  small\t scale\tindustries  for\t the
\nmanufacture of\tresin and  turpentine oil. The industries of
\nthe petitioners’  in Writ  Petitions Nos.  3465 of  1980 and
\n3231 of\t 1980 were  provisionally registered but revalidated
\nfor short  periods. The\t industry of  the petitioner in Writ
\nPetition No.  3464 of  1980  was  provisionally\t registered,
\nrevalidation was  applied  for\tbut  was  not  granted.\t The
\nindustry of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5908 of 1980
\nwas formally  registered. It  appears that  the\t petitioners
\nwere applying  to the  Government for  allotment of resin as
\nwell as raw material for their industries but the Government
\nreferring to their policy decision of March 20, 1978 refused
\nto make any allotment of Oleo resin to them. The petitioners
\nin Writ\t Petition Nos.\t3464 and  5908 of  1980 have alleged
\nthat they  purchased raw-material  from the  open market and
\nsomehow managed\t their\tindustries  to\trun  for  a  certain
\nperiod.\n<\/p>\n
     3. Resin  is admittedly a forest product extracted from
\n“Chir trees”.  It has been alleged that only three States of
\nIndia, namely, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Jammu and
\nKashmir have Chir forests. The petitioners have alleged that
\nthe State  of Himachal\tPradesh and  Uttar  Pradesh  stopped
\nselling\t resin\tfor  the  last\tseveral\t years\tin  view  of
\nestablishment of  factories in\tpublic and joint sectors and
\nthat the  State of  Jammu and  Kashmir was  selling resin by
\npublic auction.\t Sometime after\t October 1978  the State  of
\nJammu and  Kashmir, it\thas been  further alleged, virtually
\ncreated monopoly  in favour  of\t three\texisting  industrial
\nunits and  committed to\t supply them  about 17,000  M. T. of
\nresin for  long time  to come. There is a Public sector unit
\nin Jammu  which consumes about 3,000 tons of resin per year.
\nSeveral small  scale industries,  according to\tpetitioners,
\nwere  assured\tsupply\tof   resin  even  as  late  as\t1979
\nnotwithstanding\t the   Government’s   aforesaid\t  industrial
\npolicy. In  such a  situation, being  unable to procure raw-
\nmaterials for  their industries,  the petitioners approached
\nthe relevant  authorities including  the Deputy\t Minister of
\nIndustry and  the Chief\t Minister of  Jammu and\t Kashmir for
\nallotment of raw-materials but to no avail. (For the sake of
\nconvenience  we\t  shall\t hereinafter   refer  only   to\t the
\nrespondents and\t Annexures in  W. P.  No. 3231 of 1980). The
\npetitioners further  allege that  while\t they  were  refused
\nallotment of supply of raw- materials, respondent No. 1 made
\nallotments to  respondents No.\t4 to  16 (hereinafter called
\n“allottee respondents”) although most of them
\n844<\/span>
\nwere not  even formally registered at the time of making the
\nimpugned orders of allotment.\n<\/p>\n
     The petitioners  contend that in the circumstances they
\nwere adversely\tdiscriminated against while respondents Nos.
\n4 to  16 were  favour ed and as such the impugned orders are
\nliable to be struck down as , violative of Article 14<\/a> of the
\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
     4. The impugned orders have been annexed as Annexures N
\nto Z-1.\t The letter of allotment (Annexure ‘X’) in favour of
\nM\/s. Sud  Pine Industries  (respondent No.  27)\t is  in\t the
\nfollowing terms:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Sub: Supply\tof resin to M\/s. Sud Pine Industries
\n     Kunwani for their factory at Talab Jammu.
\n\t  Government Order No. 175 DIC\/1980 dated 30-5-1980.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In partial\t modification of Government order No. 2. DIC
\nof 1979\t dated 20-1-1979  sanction is accorded to the supply
\nof crude  (oleo) resin\t700 tonnes  per annum  by the Forest
\nDeptt. to  M\/s. Sud  Pine Industries  for their\t factory  at
\nKunjwani Talab\tJammu on  the terms and conditions specified
\nin the\tabove said  order. The\tsupply\tof  resin  shall  be
\nsubject to  its being  reviewed by  the Government  with due
\nregards to its availability from year to year.\n<\/p>\n
     By order of the Govt. of J & K.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t    Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t    (Sheikh Ghulam Rasool)
\n\t\t\t\t   Secretary to Government.”\n<\/p>\n
The orders  as per annexures L to W in favour of respondents
\n17 to  26 are  identical  in  material\tparts.\tIt  will  be
\nsufficient if  the material portion of Annexure N is quoted.
\nIt runs thus.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Sanction is\taccorded  to  the  supply  of  crude
\n     (oleo) resin by the Forest Department to M\/s. Kashmir R
\n     & T  Works, Srinagar,  for their  factory at  Srinagar,
\n     subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement to
\n     be entered\t into between  the Forest Department and the
\n     party and on the following specific conditions:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  1.   The  Forest   Department\t will  supply  Crude
\n\t       (oleo) resin  @ 700  TPA to the firm from the
\n\t       date the\t Unit is formally registered subject
\n\t       to its  being reviewed with due regard to its
\n\t       availability from year to year;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
845<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  2.   The resin  will be  supplied @  Rs. 320\/- per
\n\t       quintal, unless otherwise reviewed on year to
\n\t       year basis.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  3.   The cost\t of empty  tin will be charged @ Rs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       5\/- per tin in addition to the above rate;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  4.   By order\t of  the  Government  at  Jammu\t and
\n\t       Kashmir.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t Sd\/- Sheikh Ghulam Rasool
\n\t\t\t\t   Secretary to Government.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t    (emphasis added)\n<\/p>\n
     5.\t It   is  obvious   that  the  industries  of  these
\nrespondents were  not formally registered at the time of the
\nimpugned orders of allotment.\n<\/p>\n
     6. The  State of  Jammu and  Kashmir (Respondent No. 1)
\nhave filed  a counter  affidavit. They\thave not  denied the
\nmaterial allegations  of the  petitioners but  they say that
\nthe allocations\t have been  made in  order to  implement the
\nindustrial policy of the State Government as enunciated in a
\n“Report of  the\t Development  Review  Committee,  Jammu\t and
\nKashmir” a  committee headed by Shri L. K. Jha, the Governor
\nof the\tState. Respondent  No. 1  has quoted from the report
\nthe ‘Goals’ of the industrial policy which read:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The balanced\t economic development  of the  State
\n     will obviously,  be one of the foremost concerns of the
\n     Government. They  would like  to emphasis maximum self-
\n     sufficiency and  self-reliance  consistently  with\t the
\n     need to  promote the  requisite and desirable degree of
\n     inter-dependence with  other parts of the country. ‘The
\n     objective will  be\t to  secure  the  most\tprudent\t and
\n     beneficial utilization  of the  natural  resources\t and
\n     skills peculiar  to this  State; to achieve the maximum
\n     possible F\t rate of  economic growth, consistently with
\n     the need  to  secure  a  degree  of  balanced  regional
\n     development as  well as balance between the rural areas
\n     and the urban, to maximise State per capita income, and
\n     to generate the maximum employment potential.
\n\t  Many areas  of the  State are as cut off, isolated
\n     and poor  as they\twere at the dawn of independence. We
\n     have to improve the living standards in these specially
\n     backward areas  for whom  in terms of the quickest mode
\n     of transportation,\t Srinagar is  more distant  than the
\n     State is from Kerala.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Many sections\t of the\t community  similarly,\tlike
\n     Scheduled Castes;\tGujarat\t and  Bakarwalas  and  other
\n     backward class  need to  be assisted  in  their  speedy
\n     uplift.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
846<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  Ladakh needs\ta visible  acceleration of the tempo
\n     of its development so that our people in this far flung
\n     and difficult frontier area can realise the full fruits
\n     of development in the shortest possible time.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Respondent No.  1 has  given the district wise break-up
\nof the\tapplications received  from different regions. It is
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
     Jammu\t\t\t\t\t-\t63\n     Udaypur\t\t\t\t\t-\t10\n     Rajouri\t\t\t\t\t-\t 1\n     Poonch\t\t\t\t\t-\t 1\n     Doda\t\t\t\t\t-\t 1\n     Kathua\t\t\t\t\t-\t 9\n     Anantnag\t\t\t\t\t-\t 2\n     Srinagar\t\t\t\t\t-\t11\n     Outsiders\t\t\t\t\t-\t12\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  ----------\n\t\t\t\t       GRAND TOTAL\t 110\n\t\t\t\t\tApplications\n\t\t\t\t\t\t -----------\n<\/pre>\n
     They  have\t  also\tshown\tthe  allotments\t  of   resin
\ndistrictwise. The  industries of the respondents No. 4 to 16
\nare also  small scale  industries. The break-up of the small
\nscale industries  as given  in Annexure\t R.II (in  W.P.\t No.
\n3464) shows  that Jammu\t has the  largest  number  of  units
\nnamely, 10,  Second comes Srinagar with 4, then come Udampur
\nwith 3,\t Kathua (in  Jammu Division), Anantnag and Baramulla
\n(in Kashmir  Division), with  one  each.  Rajouri  in  Jammu
\nDivision has  none. It\tappears that  the industries  of the
\npresent applicants are also in the Jammu region and those of
\nrespondents No.\t 4 to 16 also appear to have been located in
\nthe Jammu  region. In  their affidavit\tat para 3 respondent
\nNo. 1 has stated that all the applications for allocation of
\nresin were considered from time to time at various levels by
\nthe State  Government and  it was decided on May 30, 1980 as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  (a)  The allotment  of resin\tto the existing unit
\n\t       should be rationalised;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  Applications received  from various districts
\n\t       be considered for allotment of resin.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The State\tGovernment have\t submitted that they made no
\npromise of  supply of  raw-material in\tfavour of any of the
\npetitioners. The petitioners have submitted, in our opinion,
\ncorrectly, that\t as there  were already 10 units functioning
\nin small  scale sector\tin the\tJammu region and inasmuch as
\nthe allottee  respondents’ industries  were also  located in
\nthe Jammu  region, allocations\tin  their  favour  would  be
\ninconsistent with the Government’s industrial policy.\n<\/p>\n
847<\/span><\/p>\n
     7. In the instant case, respondent No. 1 as well as the
\nother parties  has taken reliance on their industrial policy
\nstatement as  stated  above.  We  have\talready\t quoted\t the
\nrelevant portions  of the State Industrial policy statement.
\nThe Government have stated that they have considered all the
\n110 applications  including those  of the petitioners coming
\nfrom industrialists  of different parts of the country. They
\nhave stated,  and their\t statement is  corroborated  by\t the
\ndocuments, that\t there is preponderance of industries in the
\nJammu region  and industries  of the  petitioners as well as
\nrespondents No.\t 4 to  16 were\talso functioning in the same
\nregion. Respondent  No. 1 has not explained as to how and on
\nwhat basis, if any, the allotments were made by the impugned
\norders in  favour of the new allottees whose industries were
\nlocated in the Jammu region.\n<\/p>\n
     Pawan Kumar  Sharma, the petitioner in W.P. No. 3231 of
\n1980 states  that his  industry was provisionally registered
\nunder the  Provisional Registration  Certificate dated 29-1-
\n1976. It  was further extended for further short periods. He
\nsays that  as there  was assurance from the authorities that
\nraw-materials will be allotted to him after he completed the
\ninstallation of requisite machinery.\n<\/p>\n
     The J. K. Resin and Turpentine Industries of petitioner
\nOm Prakash  Sud, was  provisionally registered\tin the\tyear
\n1975. He  was also  approaching the  Government from time to
\ntime to\t get allotment\tof  the\t raw-materials\tbut  got  no
\nfavourable reaction  from the  Government. He states that he
\nhad already established his factory and got it insured for a
\nsum of\tRs. 6.80  lakhs. He  obtained raw-material  from the
\nopen market and was running his industry.\n<\/p>\n
     Petitioner, Ravindra  Dutt of  M\/s.  Dinesh  Resin\t and
\nTurpentines in\tW.P. No.  3465\tof  1980  alleges  that\t his
\nindustry was  provisionally registered\ton 25-10-1975  which
\nwas extended  upto April,  1979. Letter\t of 31st  May,\t1979
\nshows that  his industry was later on formally registered as
\na  small   unit.  This\t factory  was  producing  resin\t and
\nturpentine out\tof the\tresin which  he purchased  from open
\nauction He  was approaching the Government from time to time
\nto get requisite quantity of raw-materials but failed to get
\nit.\n<\/p>\n
     Petitioner, Shamlal  Kapoor, Director  of\tJammu  Resin
\nEnterprises Private  Limited, alleges  that his industry was
\nformally registered with the Government of J & K. He alleges
\nthat his industry was functioning for a long time and trying
\nto get\tnecessary quota of raw-materials from respondent No.\n<\/p>\n
1. He was approaching the Government to get requisite quota.
\nSud Pine  Industries, was  provisionally registered on 10-3-
\n1978 and  formally registered on 10-10-1978. It appears from
\nAnnexure N, in respect of respondent M\/s Kashmir R & T Works
\n848<\/span>
\n(respondent No. 17), Annexure O in respect of M\/s. Sun Shine
\nR &  T Industries (respondent No. 18), Annexure P in respect
\nof M\/s.\t Woolan Paints and Chemicals Scopore (respondent No.\n<\/p>\n
19) Annexure Q in respect of M\/s. Pine Wood Products Company
\n(respondent No. 20), Annexure R in respect of M\/s. Haji Mast
\nAli Slaria  (respondent No.  21), Annexure  S in  respect of
\nM\/s. Phyto  Chemicals (respondent  No. n  22), Annexure T in
\nrespect\t of   M\/s.  New\t  Himalayan  Paints   and  Chemicals
\n(respondent No.\t 23), Annexure\tU in  respect of  M\/s. S. K.
\nChemical (respondent  No. 24), Annexure V in respect of M\/s.
\nRajindra R & T (respondent No. 25) and Annexure W in respect
\nof M\/s. Bharat Paints and Chemicals (respondent No. 26) that
\nthe allotments\twere made in their favour “from the date the
\nunit is\t formally registered”  which shows  that  industries
\nwere not  even registered at the time of the impugned orders
\nof  this   allotment.  Respondent   M\/s.  Rajindra   R\t&  T
\nIndustries,  Udhampur,\tappears\t to  stand  on\ta  different
\nfooting. He  appears to\t have fulfilled\t all the  conditions
\nrequired for  allocation of  resin in  accordance  with\t the
\npolicy of the State of J & K. The industry is an experienced
\none  and   the\tfactory\t started  production  of  resin\t and
\nturpentine at Hoshiarpur since 1948. It is a firm registered
\nunder the  Indian Partnership Act<\/a> and has long experience in
\nthe business  including resin and turpentine since 1948. The
\nindustry set  up a  factory in\t1970 in the rural industrial
\nestate near  Udhampur which is a backward area. The industry
\nwas provisionally registered in 1970 and formal registration
\nwas granted on 29-2-1974. It applied for adequate quantities
\nof raw-materials  and was allotted only 200 tons although it
\nhad been sanctioned 1500 per ton per annum since 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     Respondent M\/s. Sud Pine Industries, M\/s. Kashmir R & T
\nWorks, Bakshi  Resin & Turpentine and M\/s. K. C. Soni Bakshi
\nalso appear  to be  on different  footings. It\tappears from
\nAnnexures ‘X’  and ‘Y’\tthat the  first two  industries have
\nalready been  formally registered.  They are  existing units
\nhaving already\tstarted production. So far as respondent M\/s
\nBakshi Resin and Turpentine is concerned, it had already set
\nup factory  and started\t production.  It  was  provisionally
\nregistered as  early as\t 1976 and  the unit  is located in a
\nbackward area.\tSo far\tas respondent  K. C.  Soni  Resin  &
\nTurpentine is concerned, it was formally registered on 19-4-\n<\/p>\n
79. This  unit is  located in  a remote backward area of the
\nState.\n<\/p>\n
     8. “Equality  before the  Law” or\t“equal protection of
\nthe  laws”   within  the   meaning  of\tArticle\t 14<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution  of   India  means\t absence  of  any  arbitrary
\ndiscrimination by  the law  or in  their administration.  No
\nundue favour  to one  or hostile  discrimination to  another
\nshould be  shown. A  classification is reasonable when it is
\nnot  an\t  arbitrary  selection\t but  rests  on\t differences
\npertinent to the subject
\n849<\/span>
\nin  respect   of  which\t the  classification  is  made.\t The
\nclassification permissible  must be  based on  some real and
\nsubstantial distinction,  a just  and reasonable relation to
\nthe objects  sought  to\t be  attained  and  cannot  be\tmade
\narbitrarily and\t without any  substantial  basis..  ……..
\n(See State  of West  Bengal v. Anwar Ali<\/a>. The classification
\nmust not  be arbitrary\tbut be\trational, that is to say, it
\nmust not  only be based on some qualities or characteristics
\nwhich are  to be  found in  all the persons grouped together
\nand not\t in others  who are  left out.\tThose  qualities  or
\ncharacteristics must  have  a  reasonable  relation  to\t the
\nobject of the law. In order to pass the test, two conditions
\nmust be\t fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must
\nbe   founded\ton   an\t  intelligible\t differentia   which
\ndistinguishes those  that are  grouped together from others,
\nand (2)\t that differentia  must have  a rational relation to
\nthe object sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia
\nwhich is  the basis  of the classification and the object of
\nthe Act\t are distinct  things and  what is necessary is that
\nthere must be a nexus between them.\n<\/p>\n
     We are  not unaware  that the rule of equality does not
\nmean mathematical  equality and that it permits of practical
\ninequalities. But  what is  needed is  that the selection of
\nquota seekers  as in the case in hand should have a rational
\nrelation  to  the  object  sought  to  be  achieved  in\t the
\nindustrial policy decision of the State. If the selection or
\ndifferentiation is  arbitrary and  lacks a rational basis it
\noffends Article 14.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
     9. In  the instant\t case, although the State Government
\nhas taken  reliance on\tthe State Industrial Policy decision
\nreferred to above, they do not appear to have followed it in
\npractice, except  in  the  cases  of  the  five\t respondents
\nreferred to  above. In\tfact no\t reasonable basis  has\tbeen
\nadopted in  making the\tallotments  in\tfavour\tof  the\t new
\nallottees and  denying allotments to the petitioners. In the
\ncircumstances the petitions are partly allowed, the impugned
\norders of  allotments except  in favour\t of respondents, M\/s
\nRajindra Resin\tand  Turpentine\t Industries,  M\/s  Sud\tPine
\nIndustries, M\/s\t Kashmir R  & T\t Works, M\/s  Bakshi Resin  &
\nTurpentine and\tM\/s  K.\t C.  Soni  Resin  &  Turpentine\t are
\nquashed. The  petitions are  partly allowed.  The Rules\t are
\nmade absolute  except as against these five respondents. The
\nrespondent. No.\t 1, the\t State\tof  Jammu  and\tKashmir,  is
\ndirected to  make the  other allotments of the raw-materials
\nto the\tapplicants in  the light  of the  observations\tmade
\nabove.\n<\/p>\n
     10. Respondent  No. 1  shall pay costs of Rs. 100.00 to
\neach of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t   Petition partly allowed.\n850<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Om Prakash Sud Etc. Etc vs State Of J & K & Ors. Etc. Etc on 16 February, 1981 Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1001, 1981 SCR (2) 841 Author: B Islam Bench: Islam, Baharul (J) PETITIONER: OM PRAKASH SUD ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF J & K & ORS. ETC. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-270642","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nOm Prakash Sud Etc. Etc vs State Of J & K & Ors. Etc. Etc on 16 February, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Om Prakash Sud Etc. Etc vs State Of J & K & Ors. Etc. Etc on 16 February, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1981-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-01T00:28:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Om Prakash Sud Etc. Etc vs State Of J & K & Ors. Etc. Etc on 16 February, 1981\",\"datePublished\":\"1981-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-01T00:28:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981\"},\"wordCount\":2994,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981\",\"name\":\"Om Prakash Sud Etc. Etc vs State Of J & K & Ors. Etc. Etc on 16 February, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1981-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-01T00:28:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Om Prakash Sud Etc. Etc vs State Of J & K & Ors. Etc. Etc on 16 February, 1981\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Om Prakash Sud Etc. Etc vs State Of J & K & Ors. Etc. Etc on 16 February, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Om Prakash Sud Etc. Etc vs State Of J & K & Ors. Etc. Etc on 16 February, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1981-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-01T00:28:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Om Prakash Sud Etc. Etc vs State Of J & K & Ors. Etc. Etc on 16 February, 1981","datePublished":"1981-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-01T00:28:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981"},"wordCount":2994,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981","name":"Om Prakash Sud Etc. Etc vs State Of J & K & Ors. Etc. Etc on 16 February, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1981-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-01T00:28:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-sud-etc-etc-vs-state-of-j-k-ors-etc-etc-on-16-february-1981#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Om Prakash Sud Etc. Etc vs State Of J & K & Ors. Etc. Etc on 16 February, 1981"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270642","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=270642"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270642\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=270642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=270642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=270642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}