https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178285 A regulatory scheme selecting a single vendor for high security registration plates was analysed as exceeding the statutory framework and risking an impermissible monopoly. The principal opinion stated that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 permit approved private suppliers, but do not justify excluding all other authorised manufacturers through a State-wide single-supplier tender. It also found the experience-in-multiple-countries and turnover conditions lacked a rational nexus with security and unfairly excluded Indian manufacturers. Clause 4(x) was treated as beyond the power conferred by Section 109(3). The Chief Justice disagreed, and the matter was referred to a larger Bench, so the controversy was not finally resolved on merits. en-us Wed, 26 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Feb 2016 16:16:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178285 A regulatory scheme selecting a single vendor for high security registration plates was analysed as exceeding the statutory framework and risking an impermissible monopoly. The principal opinion stated that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 permit approved private suppliers, but do not justify excluding all other authorised manufacturers through a State-wide single-supplier tender. It also found the experience-in-multiple-countries and turnover conditions lacked a rational nexus with security and unfairly excluded Indian manufacturers. Clause 4(x) was treated as beyond the power conferred by Section 109(3). The Chief Justice disagreed, and the matter was referred to a larger Bench, so the controversy was not finally resolved on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178285