RAMAN MOHAN GAUTAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions raise the question of legality of the escalation of price of the Maruti Cars booked by the petitioners and nondelivery of the cars in the month of February 1987 in view of the impending budget. The grievance is mainly against the agents who had demanded the escalated price and who had refused to release the cars. CW. 987/87 is a typical writ petition representing the broad facts and averments common to all connected writ petitions. We are of the opinion that these petitions raise disputed questions of fact for which detailed evidence is necessary. So also the averments are in the nature of the alleged broach of contract and the prayers in the writ petitions are for the protection of the contractual rights of the petitioners. The facts ncessary for our said findings are common to all the writ petitions. Hence, it is sufficient to describe in detail the facts and averments only in one writ petition, viz. CW. 987/87.

(2.) In CW. 987/87 the additional grievance of the petitioner is that be was being allotted a green car, (which was not the colour of his choice) & that too was diverted to manufacturer's quota. The main allegations are contained in paras 13&14 of the petition, they are re-produced below:-

(3.) These allegations are fully and substantively controverted in paras l8& 19 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited. After going through the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the vehicle meant for the petitioner was not delivered to anyone else. As a matter of fact, in the seniority list the petitioner's number was 29 while only 28 green cars were issued. Respondent No. 2 has also annexed the seniority list with the counter affidavit. Respondent No. 2 has pointed out that the responsibility for the delivery of the car was not of resopondent No. 3 the Dealer. It is categorically denined in the counter-affidavit that the green car meant for the petitioner was diverted and was supplied to someone else. It is further averred that one green car bad to be given on the basis of the preferential quota laid down by the Supreme Court. Each of these statements controverting the allegations in the writ petition are supported by documents. As a matter of fact the respondents have not only substantively denied the allegations, but have put the petition through strict proof. But even if we look at the allegations in paras 13&14 of the petition themselves, they are not definite allegations, but only "apprehen- sions" It is, thus, clear that the petition raises serious disputed questions of fact and these allegations can be ascertained only on the oral and documentary evidence possible in a civil suit and not in the writ petition.