DEVRAJ GARG Vs. MARUTI UDYOG LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The acceptance of Respondent No. 2's offer of Rs. 1,56,00,000.00 as non-interest bearing deposit has surprised the petitioners. According to them, the consequential grant of dealership for automobiles manufactured by Maruti Udyog Limited tor the city of Gwalior, would lead to unhealthy trade practices. This, belief on their part has led them to prefer this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Gwalior, the erstwhile capital of the Scindia's, is no longer under the threat of dacoits who used to infest the Chambal Valley on one side and Shivpuri on the other. The area is now flourishing and is surging forward into 21st Century as an industrial and commercial township. It appears that this realisation on the part of the respondent No.2, has led it to make the investment and to opt for the dealership. It is this financial commitment and grant of dealership in their favour qua which grievance has been made in this petition.

(2.) The petitioner submits that five criteria were indicated by Maruti Udyog Limited for grant of dealership. These be noticed as under :

(3.) The petitioners submit that they had all the pre-requisites specified above and it is contended that the dealership should have gone in their favour. It is highlighted that the petitioners and the respondent No. 2, were short-listed. The petitioner made an offer to make a deposit of non-interest bearing amount to the tune of Rs. 1,10,55,000.00 whereas the respondent No. 2, made an offer for a sum of Rs. 2,25,00,000.00. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2, felt that this offer is on the higher side and wanted the parties to scale down their offers. This was because the commission which was likely to be available on account of sale of cars would have been for less than interest which the above amount is likely to fetch scaled down offers were made. The petitioner made an offer of Rs. 62 lakhs whereas the respondent No. 2, made an offer of Rs. 1,56 crores. According to the petitioners, if the Maruti Udyog Limited earlier formed an opinion that the offer of Rs. 1,10,55,000.00 is on higher side, then there is no justification to accept the offer of respondent No. 2, which is according to the petitioner, as noticed above would lead to unhealthy trade practice as vehicles are likely to be sold on premium. Independently of this, it is urged that the petitioners are better qualified. They have experience in the trade, whereas it is pointed out that respondent No. 2, has no experience in the sale of four wheeled vehicles. It is stated that sale of motor-cycles has been the only experience which this respondent possesses. It is also contended that they have their showroom at a better place and therefore, the offer should have gone to them.