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