Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 510 OF 2005
Maninderjit Singh Bitta ...Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. This Writ Petition is purported to have been filed in
Public Interest. The prayer essentially is implementation by
the State and Union Territories of the judgment of this Court
1
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12
in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India & Ors.
[2005(1) SCC 679]. By the said judgment terms and
conditions of notices inviting tenders from manufacturers for
the purpose of implementing Section 41(6) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the ‘Act’) and Rule 50 of the Motor
Vehicles Rule, 1989 (in short the ‘Rules’) were considered.
Grievance is made that though in the aforesaid judgment the
norms were fixed and the desirability of having the High
Security Registration Place (in short the ‘HSRP’) has been
highlighted nothing concrete has been done. According to the
petitioner, in order to curb the growing menace of crime and
terrorist activities using motor vehicles as a tool, the Central
government came out with a new scheme of HSRP.
Accordingly, Rule 50 of the Rules was implemented by the
Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 41(6)
of the Act read with Section 64(d) of the Act by Notification
dated 28.3.2001. Instead of old method of obtaining
registration number from the RTO and getting the number
plate made from open market, a new system was introduced
regulating the issuance and fixing of the number plate.
2
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12
Subsequently, two more notifications dated 22.8.2001 and
16.10.2001 were issued to make the requirement of the
scheme complete. The dispute in the earlier decision related
to the terms and conditions of Notices Inviting Tenders (NITs)
for supply of HSRP for motor vehicles. The tenders had been
issued by various State Governments on the basis of
guidelines circulated by the Central Government for
implementing the provisions of the Act and the newly
amended rules. In paras 10, 11 & 12 it was noted as follows:
"10. The main features of the high security
registration plates as provided in Rule 50 and
the Order of 2001 are as follows:
1. It provides for a solid aluminium plate.
2. The plate should be suitable for hot
stamping and would be a reflective sheet.
3. The plate should bear the letters "IND" in
blue colour.
4. It should have a chromium-based
hologram which shall also be hot-stamped.
5. There would be a third registration mark
which would be self-reflective being a
chromium-based hologram sticker and which
would be affixed on the windshield of the
vehicle.
6. The plate on the rear shall be fastened
with non-removable/ non-reusable snap-lock
fitting system.
3
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12
11. The abovementioned features to the high
security registration plates have been insisted
upon for the following reasons:
1. Hot chromium-based hologram would
prevent counterfeiting.
2. The ingress letter "IND" on the plate
would secure national identity and
standardisation.
3. The laser-etched seven-digit code to be
given by the manufacturer to each plate is
with a view that there should be a sequential
identification of individual registration plates
across the country. This would act as a
watermark and would not be erasable by any
mechanical or technical process.
4. Snap-lock to be fitted on the rear
portions of the vehicle would be tamper-proof.
Any attempt to remove the plate would break
it.
5. The reflective sheet of superior grade
would be visible from a minimum of 200
metres.
6. The alphanumeral would be easily
readable and identifiable.
7. On alphanumeral border, ingress letters
"IND" would prevent painting and screen
printing which would act as protection against
counterfeiting.
8. The sticker to be affixed on the
windshield would have seven-digit laser code
containing the engine number and the chassis
number. This is so designed as to be self-
destructive upon removal.
12. After Rule 50 was amended and the New
High Security Registration Plates (Amendment)
Order, 2001 was issued in purported exercise
of power under Section 109(3) of the Act, the
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide
its letter dated 6-3-2002 circulated the
minutes of the meeting of 4-3-2001 held
between the representatives of all States and
Union Territories on introduction of the new
system of registration plates. A series of
meetings were held by the Union with the
4
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12
States. Eventually, on 6-3-2002 the Union laid
down guidelines for incorporating necessary
conditions in the notices inviting tenders to be
issued by the various States. In substance, the
guidelines suggest as follows:
1. The tender document would specify
whether the appointment of the vendor was for
the whole State or for certain parts.
2. The tender document would specify the
terms of the bank guarantee.
3. The tender document would require a
report-back on certain aspects on "a periodic
and regular basis".
4. The bidder must furnish proof of past
experience/expertise in this area or proof of
the same with a collaborator."
2. This Court after analyzing the various provisions and the
intent of the prescription dismissed the writ petitions filed
directly before this Court and transferred from the High
Courts.
3. It is contended by the petitioner that the scheme as
contained in the Notifications dated 22.8.2001 and
16.10.2001 are as follows:
"(i) It prescribes the high security technical
features that the plates must contain. These
5
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12
features are such that the plates cannot be
duplicated, removed or replaced. It also
ensures that the identification and tracking of
the vehicle is certain and easier.
(ii) It is mandatory that the intending manufacturer
must obtain a Type Approval Certificate (TAC) from
one of the notified agencies. The companies submit
samples which are certified to be technically
complying with the requirements of Rule 50.
(iii) The implementing agency is the State through its
RTO. The RTO has to issue the number as well as
the plate which shall be fixed in the premises of
RTO by the selected manufacturer."
4. It is pointed out that the primary grounds for rejection of
the stand of the writ petitioners in the aforesaid case are as
follows:
"(a) The imposition of strict conditions is
in furtherance of the object sought to be
achieved.
(b) There is no scope for trial and error.
The State has the onerous duty to
ensure that it eliminates ‘fly by
night’ operates who claim that they
can deliver but have neither
experience nor financial capacity to
deliver. They are there to somehow
get the work.
6
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12
(c) Till date the technology to
manufacture the plates has not
developed in India. Thus there
cannot be a pure Indian
Manufacturer without a JV partner.
(d) The conditions are fair and
reasonable. They are not arbitrary
and are free from malafides.
(e) The fact that there are few
manufacturers who can pass the
eligibility test does not mean that
monopoly is created in their favour
or that the conditions are tailor
made.
(f) The term of 15 year contract and
selection of one manufacturer for
the whole State was also held to be
non arbitrary and reasonable. The
argument about creation of
monopoly was also rejected."
5. Grievance of the petitioner and the intervener i.e. All
India Motor Vehicles Security Association is that subsequent
to the judgment the scheme of HSRP is yet not implemented in
any State except the State of Meghalaya and other States are
still repeating the processing of the tender. The prayer
therefore is that the purpose of introducing the scheme should
7
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12
be fulfilled letter and spirit. The objective being public safety
and security there should not be any lethargy. It is pointed
out that most of the States floated the tenders and thereafter
without any reason the process has been slowed down. From
the details filed, the various States and the Union Territories
can be categorised as follows:
CATEGORY STATUS OF STATE WISE N.I.Ts. AND
POSITION VIS-@-VIS JUDGMENT OF
THIS HON’BLE COURT IN
ASSOCIATION OF REGISTRATION
PLATES & ORS.V. UNION OF INDA
(2005(1) SCC 679)
CATEGORY-1 States who had defended the Tender
conditions before this Hon’ble Court
and cancelled the tender after
30.11.2004, the date of judgment in
2005(1) SCC 679.
1. Jammu & Kashmir
2. Punjab
3. Haryana
4. Maharashtra
5. Pondicherry
CATEGORY-II States who had defended the Tender
conditions before this Hon’ble Court
and thereafter re-floated fresh Tender in
consonance with the judgment of the
Hon’ble Courtin 2005(1) SCC 679.
1. Kerala
2. Rajasthan
3. Dadra N. Haveli
4. Daman & Diu
8
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12
CATEGORY III States who had defended the Tender
conditions before this Hon’ble Court
and subsequently re-floated Tender
without the essential conditions and
what was defended before this Hon’ble
Court.
1. West Bengal
2. Tamil Nadu
CATEGORY - IV States who have issued Tender after the
judgment of this Hon’ble Court in 2005
(1) SCC 679 in consonance with the
Tender conditions upheld in the said
judgment.
1. Karnataka
2. Goa
3. Mizoram
4. Manipur
CATEGORY-V States who had defended the Essential
Tender conditions before this Hon’ble
Court and subsequently awarded the
same Tender.
1. Nagaland
2. Meghalaya
CATEGORY VI States who have issued the Tender after
30.11.2004 without the essential tender
conditions.
1. Assam
2. Tripura
3. Andaman & Nicobar
CATEGORY VII The state of Uttar Pradesh who had
issued the notice inviting Tender on
27.4.2003 without the essential
conditions and the Letter of Intent
though issued on 07.5.2003 the
contract is yet to be signed. State of
Uttar Pradesh be directed to issue fresh
Tender with the essential conditions.
9
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12
6. It appears that some of the States have not yet floated
the tenders and in some cases after the tenders have been
floated there appears to be no noticeable progress.
7. The Union of India and some of the States have
questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to file the petition
and have stated that this is not a Public Interest Litigation
and some of the business concerns who will be benefited from
the tenders have put up the petitioner as a front to add
legitimacy to the cause. It is stated that ultimately it is the
business interest which is lurking in the background and in
commercial matters this Court should not interfere.
8. Without going into the question as to whether the
petition is a bonafide Public Interest Petition, we feel it would
be in the interest of all concerned if the States and the Union
Territories take definite decision as to whether there is need
for giving effect to the amended Rule 50 and the Scheme of
HSRP and the modalities to be followed.
10
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12
9. Needless to say the scheme appears to have been
introduced keeping in view the public safety and security of
the citizens. Let necessary decisions be taken, if not already
taken, within a period of six months from today. While taking
the decision the aspects highlighted by this Court in the
earlier decision needless to say shall be kept in view.
10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith the
I.A. for intervention without any order as to costs.
........................................J.
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
........................................J.
(C.K. THAKKER)
.........................................J.
(LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)
New Delhi:
May 8, 2008
11
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12
12