Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India & Ors.

~ 4 # [2008] 7 S.C.R 1182 A ## MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA _V._ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 51 O of 2005) B ## MAY 8, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] _Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989_ - _r 50_ - _Scheme of High Security Registration Plate (HSRP)_ - _Introduction of, by_ c _amendment of r 50 and by issuing Notifications_ - _Norms for the scheme fixed by Supreme Court in the judgment passed in_ *Association of registration Plates _case_ - _Writ petition before Supreme court seeking implementation of the judgment_ - _Held: Scheme was introduced in view of public safety and_ D _security of citizens_ - _Direction to states and Union Territories to take definite decisions regarrfing giving effect to amended r 50 and scheme of HSRP_ Writ petition was filed before this court seeking E[implementation ][of ][the judgment passed in ] _[*Association ][of ] Registration Plates v. Union of India and drs._ whereby norms of having High Security Registration Plate (HSRP) has been fixed. It was contended that despite the judgment , the scheme of HSRP was yet not implemented. Disposing of the appeal, the Court F HELD: The High Security Registration Plate Scheme (HSRP) appears to have been introduced keeping in view the public safety and security of the citizens. It appears that some of the States have not yet floated the tenders G and in some cases after the tenders have been floated there appears to be no noticeable progress. 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 of Motor H 1182 H ' ~ ,. ·- MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA _v_ UNION OF INDIA & 1183 ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] Vehicles Rules 1989 and the Scheme of HSRP and tile A modalities to be followed. Let necessary decisions be taken, if not already taken, within a period of six months from the date of this decision. While taking the decision the aspects highlighted by this Court in the decision in _*Association of Registration Plates_ shall be kept in view. B [Paras 5, 6, 8 and 9) [1190-B,E,F,G] _*Association of Registration Plates vs. Union of India and Ors._ 2005 (1) SCC 679 - referred to. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. c 510 of 2005. _f_ ... Vikas Singh, ASG, K.N. Balgopal, Adv. Genl. Mukul Rohtagi, S.K. Dubey, V.A. Bobde, Sunita Sharma, W.A. Qadri, D.S. Mahra, B. Krishna Prasad, G. Prakash, Arputham Aruna & Co. Hemantika Wahi, Anil Katiyar, V.G. Pragasam, Krishnanand D Pandeya, Sanjay R. Hegde, ViV.rant Yadav, Amit Kr. Chawla, Ramesh S. Jadhav, Anis Suhrawardy. S. Mehdi Imam, Tabrez Ahmad, Radha Shyam Jena, Aruneshwar Gupta, Ranjan Mukherjee, B.S. Banthia, Vikas Upadhyay, Avijit Bhattacharjee, R. Satish, Gopal Singh, Rajesh Srivastava, Ramesh Babu M.R., E D. Bharthi Reddy, Kamini Jaiswal, B.B. Singh, Arun K. Sinha, Anurab Choudhary, Saket Singh, Neena Singh, Vikas Mehta, T.V. George, A. Subhashini, Khwairakpam Nabin Singh, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Binod K. Upadhyay, Mis Corporate Law Group, Reena Singh, Vivek Singh, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, S. F Balaji, Madhusmita Bora, Ritu Raj, Anil Shrivastav, U. Hazarika, Satya Mitra, Sumita Hazarika, Pramod Swarup, A. Mariarputham (for Mis. Aruputham Aruna & Co.), K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Pragya Baghel, Nabin Sharma and Riku Sharma (for M/s. Corporate Law Group) for the Appearing G parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. This Writ Petition is purported to have been filed in Public Interest. The prayer essentially is H 1184 [2008] 7 S.C.R. ## SUPREME COURT REPORTS A implementation by the State and Union Territories of the judgment of this Court 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) B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') and Huie 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 Plate (in short the 'HSRP') has c 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 0 Act read with Section 64(d) of the Act by Notification dated 28.3.2001. Instead of old methou 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. Subsequently, two more E 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 F the basis of guidelines circulated by the Central GovE~rnment for implementing the provisions of the Act and the newly amended rules. In paras 10, 11 & 12 it was noted as follows: G - "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. MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA _v._ UNION OF INDIA& ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 1185 -< 3. The plate should bear the letters "IND" in blue colour. A 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 B sticker and which would be affixed on the windshield of the vehicle. 6. The plate on the rear shall be fastened with nonremovable/ non-reusable snap-lock fitting system. c 11. The abovementioned features to the high security registration plates have been insisted upon for the following reasons: _I_ 1. Hot chromium-based hologram would prevent counterfeiting. 2. The ingress letter "IND" on the plate wJuld secure national identity and standardisation. D 3. The laser-etched seven-digit code to be given by the manufacturer to each plate is with a view that there E 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 po~ions of the vehicle would be tamper-proof. Any attempt to remove the plate would break it. F 5. The reflective sheet of superior grade would be visible from a minimum of 200 metres. G 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 protectio11 against counterfeiting. H SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1186 [2008] 7 S.C.R. A 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. B c D 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 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 foll0ws: E 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. F 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 G 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 sche?me as contained in the Notifications dated 22.8.2001 and 16.10.2001 H are as follows: MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA _v._ UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.) 1187 "(i) It prescribes the high security technical features that A the plates must contain. These 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[B ] 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. c (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 D the starid of the writ petitioners in the aforesaici case are as follows: "(a) The imposition of strict conditions is in furtherance of the object sought to be achieved. E (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. F (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 G 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. H 1188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] _l_ S.C.R. A (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 cre!ation of monopoly was also rejected." 5. Grievance of the petitioner and the intervene1r i.e. All 8 India Motor Vehicles Security Association is that subsequent to the judgment the scheme of HSRP is yet not implememted 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 be fulfilled C 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 D follows: |D|follows:|be categorised ascategorised as| |---|---|---| ||CATEGORY|STATUSOFSTATEWISEN.I.rs.AND| |||POSITIONVIS-A-VIS JUDGMEl\ITOF| |||THIS<br>HON'BLE<br>COURT<br>IN| |E||ASSOCIATIONOFREGISTRATION<br>PLATES&ORS.V.UNIONOFINDA| |||(2005(1) sec 679)| ||CATEGORY-1|StateswhohaddefendedtheTi:rnder| |||conditionsbeforethisHon'bleCourtand| |F||cancelledthetender after30.11.2004,| |||thedate of judgmentin2005(1)sec| |||679.| |||1.Jammu&Kashmir| |||2.Punjab| |G||3.Haryana<br>4.Maharashtra| |||5.Pondicherry| ||CATEGORY-II|StateswhohaddefendedtheTender| |||conditionsbeforethisHon'bleCou11and| |H||thereafter re-floated fresh Tenderin| MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA _v._ UNION OF INDIA & 1189 ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] A ||consonancewith thejudgmentofthe<br>Hon'ble Courtin 2005(1) SCC 679.<br>1.Kera la<br>2.Rajasthan<br>3.DadraN.Haveli<br>4. Daman & Diu| |---|---| |CATEGORY Ill|Stateswhohaddefendedthe Tender<br>conditions before this Hon'ble Court and<br>subsequently re-floated Tender without<br>theessential conditions andwhatwas<br>defended before this Hon'ble Court.<br>1.WestBengal<br>2. Tamil Nadu| |CATEGORY - IV|Stateswhohave issued Tender after the<br>judgmentofthis Hon'ble Court in 2005( 1)<br>SCC 679 in consonance with the Tender<br>conditions upheld in the said judgment.<br>1.Karnataka<br>2.Goa<br>3. Mizoram<br>4. Manipur| |CATEGORY-V|States who had defended the Essential<br>TenderconditionsbeforethisHon'ble<br>Courtandsubsequentlyawardedthe<br>sameTender.<br>1.Nagaland<br>2. Meghalaya<br>Stateswhohave issued the Tender after<br>30.11.2004 without the essential tender<br>· conditions.<br>1.Assam<br>2.Tripura<br>3.Andaman& Nicobar<br>ThestateofUttarPradeshwhohad<br>/| |CATEGORY VI|| |CATEGORY VII|| j .. [2008] 7 S.C.R. 1190 E F H ## SUPREME COURT REPORTS A B issued the notice inviting Tender on 27.4.2003 without the essential conditions and the Letter of Intent thOU!Jh 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. ., 6. It appears that some of the States have not yet floated the tenders and in some cases after the tenders have been C 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 D 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. 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 takin9 the G 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. K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.