Supreme Court of India
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 606
- Decided
- 8 May 2008
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Court directed all states and Union Territories to decide within six months on the implementation of the amended Rule 50 and the HSRP scheme, affirming its public‑safety purpose.
Summary
Maninderjit Singh Bitta filed a writ petition seeking the implementation of the High Security Registration Plate (HSRP) scheme, which the Supreme Court had earlier mandated in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India (2005). The petitioner alleged that despite the 2001 notifications and amended Rule 50 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, many states and Union Territories had either not floated tenders or had delayed the scheme's rollout. The Court examined whether the petition was maintainable as a public‑interest litigation and considered the statutory basis of the scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It held that the HSRP scheme is intended for public safety and security and that the states and Union Territories must take definitive action to give effect to the amended Rule 50. Accordingly, the Court directed all states and Union Territories to decide within six months on the implementation modalities, keeping in view the earlier judgment, and disposed of the petition without costs.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate judicial response to the alleged non‑implementation of the HSRP scheme by states and Union Territories?
- Is the writ petition maintainable as a public‑interest litigation?
- Do the statutory provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act empower the Court to direct states to implement the HSRP scheme?
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 109(3), s. 41(6), s. 64(d)
- Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989s. Rule 50
Subjects
High Security Registration PlateMotor Vehicles ActPublic Interest LitigationState implementationRoad safetySupreme Court directions
Judgment
[2008] 7 S.C.R 1182
~
A MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA
V.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 51 O of 2005)
MAY 8, 2008
B 4
[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
implementation of the judgment passed in *Association of
E ·-
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.
F Disposing of the appeal, the Court ~
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
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.
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 &
f 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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.
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:
"10. The main features of the high security registration
plates as provided in Rule 50 and the Order of 2001 are
G
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& 1185
ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
-<
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 non-
removable/ 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:
1. Hot chromium-based hologram would prevent
counterfeiting. D
I
2. The ingress letter "IND" on the plate wJuld 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 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 F
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.
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
1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [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.
12. After Rule 50 was amended and the New High Security
B 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
c 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
D
conditions in the notices inviting tenders to be issued by
the various States. In substance, the guidelines suggest
as foll0ws:
••
1. The tender document would specify whether the
appointment of the vendor was for the whole State or
for certain parts.
E
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".
F
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 & 1187
ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
"(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.
B
(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.
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:
CATEGORY STATUS OF STATE WISE N.I. rs. AND
POSITION VIS-A-VIS JUDGMEl\IT OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
ASSOCIATION OF REGISTRATION
E
PLATES & ORS.V. UNION OF INDA
(2005(1) sec 679)
CATEGORY-1 States who had defended the Ti:rnder
conditions before this Hon'ble Court and
F cancelled the tender after 30.11.2004,
the date of judgment in 2005(1) sec
679.
1. Jammu & Kashmir
2. Punjab
3. Haryana
G
4. Maharashtra
5. Pondicherry
CATEGORY-II States who had defended the Tender
conditions before this Hon'ble Cou11 and
H thereafter re-floated fresh Tender in
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. UNION OF INDIA & 1189
ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
consonance with the judgment of the A
Hon'ble Courtin 2005(1) SCC 679.
1. Kera la
2. Rajasthan
3. Dadra N. Haveli
4. Daman & Diu B
CATEGORY Ill 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.
c
1. West Bengal
2. Tamil Nadu
CATEGORY - IV States who have issued Tender after the
judgment of this Hon'ble Court in 2005( 1) D
SCC 679 in consonance with the Tender
conditions upheld in the said judgment.
1. Karnataka
2. Goa
3. Mizoram
E
4. Manipur
CATEGORY-V States who had defended the Essential
Tender conditions before this Hon'ble
Court and subsequently awarded the
same Tender. F
1. Nagaland
2. Meghalaya
CATEGORY VI States who have issued the Tender after
30.11.2004 without the essential tender
· conditions. s
1. Assam
2. Tripura
3. Andaman & Nicobar
CATEGORY VII The state of Uttar Pradesh who
/
had H
j ..
1190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.
A 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
B directed to issue fresh Tender with the .,
essential conditions. ..
I
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 Jo
I
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
E 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. '.
F
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.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "High Security Registration Plate"Sign in to search