TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1502
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ji, Pradeep Bakshi, Jaya Khanna, Ranjeeta Rohtagi, Manik Karaanjawalaa, Advs. for Karanjawala & Co., Ankur Mittal, Ranjan Mukherjee, S.C. Ghosh, Sumit Goel, Advs., for Parekh & Co., G.N. Reddy, Bala Shivudu, N. Shoba, Sri Ram J. Thalapathy, V. Adhimoolam, Shilp Vinod, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Mukesh Verma, Rachna Gupta, Anil Kumr, Anurag Gupta, A. Venayagam Balan, Praveen Chaturvedi, Rudreshwar Singh and Samir Ali Khan, JUDGMENT R. Banumathi, 1. The instant contempt petitions have been filed by the Petitioner herein highlighting the issue of implementation of Scheme of High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) in disobedience of this Court's order dated 08.12.2011 reported in (2012) 1 SCC 707 titled Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India and Ors. and order dated 07.02.2012 reported in (2012) 4 SCC 568 titled Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India and Ors. passed in W.P. No. 510 of 2005 and connected matters. In these contempt petitions, the Petitioner alleges that the Respondents-contemnors have not ensured the implementation of the orders of this Court and have failed to discharge the statutory duty imposed upon them by law by not taking any appropriate action agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it Petition being W.P. (C) No. 41 of 2003 was filed in this Court by the Association of Registration Plates, challenging the Central Government's power to issue such notification as well as the terms and conditions of the tender process. In addition to the aforesaid writ petition, various other writ petitions were filed before the different High Courts, raising the same challenge and those writ petitions came to be transferred to this Court. By the judgment reported in (2005) 1 SCC 679 titled Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Ors., this Court dismissed the Writ Petition(C) No. 41 of 2003 and other connected matters, and upheld the validity of Rule 50 as well as tender conditions. While doing so, this Court also issued certain directions for appropriate implementation of the scheme. The relevant para (31) reads as under: 31. Justifying the selection of a single manufacturer for a region or an entire State, to ensure security considerations, the following factors have been highlighted as subserving the public interest: 1. That it would not be possible to implement the scheme since the scheme provides that the approved manufacturer would us....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ete chaos. 5. It was observed that none of the tender conditions were arbitrary and discriminatory and in para (40), it was held as under: 40. Selecting one manufacturer through a process of open competition is not creation of any monopoly, as contended, in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution read with Clause (6) of the said article. As is sought to be pointed out, the implementation involves large network of operations of highly sophisticated materials. The manufacturer has to have embossing stations within the premises of the RTO. He has to maintain the data of each plate which he would be getting from his main unit. It has to be cross-checked by the RTO data. There has to be a server in the RTO's office which is linked with all RTOs in each State and thereon linked to the whole nation. Maintenance of the record by one and supervision over its activity would be simpler for the State if there is one manufacturer instead of multi-manufacturers as suppliers. The actual operation of the scheme through the RTOs in their premises would get complicated and confused if multi-manufacturers are involved. That would also seriously impair the high security conce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....non-implementation of HSRP scheme. The Court observed that: ...We regretfully note that the situation in the present case is the converse of compliance. There is no State in the entire country which has successfully, in accordance with the statutory provisions and scheme, as approved by this Court, implemented the scheme in its entirety.... 10. Vide Order dated 13.10.2011 reported in (2012) 1 SCC 273 titled Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India and Ors., this Court again noted the disobedience of earlier order of this Court by the State of Haryana and punished them for contempt, imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each on those who were responsible for disobedience of this Court's order and exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the State. Vide Order dated 08.12.2011 reported in (2012) 1 SCC 707 titled Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India and Ors., this Court referred to the affidavits filed by the various States and in order to ensure proper implementation of the HSRP Scheme, gave general directions in para (53). It is apposite to refer to the relevant direction in para (53.5) which reads as under: 5. On behalf of the Petitioner and some of the States, a question....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew High Security Registration Plates) Order, 2001. This Order does not permit the completion of the HSRP scheme in the manner sought to be adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The State was to award the contract but the same has not so far been awarded. 6. In the circumstances aforementioned, we direct the State of Andhra Pradesh to issue fresh tender, award the contract and commence the implementation of the scheme positively by 29.02.2012. It has assured this Court that now it would positively abide by the time Schedule and do the needful. 12. In the said order the approach adopted by the Government of NCT of Delhi was commented upon and this Court observed that the procedure adopted by them, is not in conformity with the judgments of this Court. The directions relating to the Government of NCT of Delhi in paras (19) and (20) read as under: 19. Be that as it may, to some extent, the procedure adopted by the Delhi Government is not in conformity with the judgments of this Court. From the documents now filed on record, it appears that DIMTS has reserved onto itself the power to select more than one vendor for the project. It is also stipulated in the draft a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... today. These States are Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Punjab, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh. (b) The States which have so far not even finalised the tender process, they should do so, again, within four weeks from today. Amongst others these States and Union Territories are Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Chandigarh, Delhi (NCT) and Puducherry. (c) Installation of HSRP is a statutory command which is not only in the interest of the security of State, but also serves a much larger public interest. Therefore, it is not only desirable, but mandatory, for every State to comply with the statutory provisions/orders of this Court in terms of Article 129 of the Constitution of India, 1950. All States, therefore, are mandated to fully implement the Scheme of fixation of HSRP in their entire State, positively by 30-4-2012 in relation to new vehicles and 15-6-2012 for old vehicles. We make it clear that they shall not be allowed any further extension of time for implementation of this direction. (d) The directions contained in the earlier judgments of this Court and more particularly, the orders dated 30-8-2011, 13-10-201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny action against M/s. Utsav and private contractors despite there being clear violation of the Rules and orders passed by this Court and such omission in not initiating action against the violators amounts to contempt of court and the Respondents are liable to be punished on account of their having committed wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court. It is further averred that the Petitioner had filed the complaint against M/s. Utsav, M/s. Rosmerta and M/s. Linkpoint pursuant to which a meeting was held in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways on 29.10.2013. Referring to the manufacture and supply of HSR Plates from the Assam unit, in the meeting, decision was taken to constitute a team of three members to inspect and verify the procedure and manufacturing activities in the plant located at Assam inter-alia on various aspects i.e. quantity of HSR Plates produced till date which includes: (i) sizes and colours of plates; (ii) laser code records; (iii) security feature records and (iv) status of plants at Assam including where the job work is done etc. The three members committee gave its inspection report dated 29.11.2013. As per the report, the team observed that there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied/affixed by M/s. Rosmerta Technologies. 17. Furthermore, the Petitioner relies upon the Utsav's letter dated 17.10.2013 addressed to the Transport Commissioner, Government of Delhi wherein M/s. Utsav has admitted that its concessionaire partners have supplied uncertified and unauthorized HSRPs. The relevant portion of the said letter dated 17.10.2013 addressed to the Transport Commissioner, Government of Delhi, reads as under: ...It is to bring to your kind notice that M/s. Rosmerta Technologies Ltd. which is the other stake-holder, in the SPV has been concerned with the purchase of Blank number plates from M/s. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. and the supply embossment and fixing of the same to the vehicles in the State. It is noteworthy that M/s. Rosmerta Technologies Ltd. under the guise of the Concession agreement has supplied huge quantities of HSRP in the name of M/s. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. to the Vehicle owners of the State without taking M/s. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. manufactured HSRP and by resorting to the supply of uncertified and unauthorized HSRP's. I would like to bring to your kind notice that the manufacturing establishment that ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... incomplete plate or security features to anyone. It is further averred that the complete bar on the job work may hinder implementation of HSRP scheme in a time bound manner. It has been contended that in the process of implementation of HSRP Scheme, it may be possible to get the certain items of work executed on 'jobwork' basis without compromising security of the process. It is further submitted that the issue of 'outsourcing' was examined in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in a meeting of the representatives of ARAI and CRRI held on 03.02.2014. It was decided that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles (New High Security Registration Plates) Order 2001 with its amendments cannot be interpreted to prevent outsourcing of manufacturing activities to other firms when all security features are in control of TAC manufacturer or the supplier. 20. The statutory agency viz., ARAI in its counter affidavit stated that M/s. Utsav is outsourcing its work through jobwork done from M/s. Rosmerta Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. States have also filed various affidavits stating that they have taken sufficient action to comply with the orders of this Court to implement HSRP ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as per the specifications laid down in the gazette notifications. M/s. Utsav was initially issued the TAC on 08.07.2002 by ARAI and received the first conformity of the production on 07.08.2003 and the same were subsequently renewed. 24. In the counter affidavit filed by sixth Respondent (ARAI), it is stated that there are two stages of manufacturing process-first carried out in a plant/factory of the TAC holder and thereafter the processes like embossing of registration allocated by the concerned RTO which is to be undertaken in RTO premises. Details of two stages of manufacturing and installation process are as under: Processes which are to be carried out in the plant/factory of TAC holder: * Purchase of Raw material namely reflective sheet, Aluminium Plate, Chromium based hologram, hot stamping black foil film and non-removable snap lock for fixing plates etc. * Lamination of reflective sheet having blue endorsement of IND on the aluminium plate. * Hot Stamping of Hologram on the reflective sheet after lamination. * Stamping of blank plate. * Edge formation of the plate. * Etching unique security laser coding num....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y M/s. Rosmerta situated in the State of Assam which has not been certified by any of the testing agencies and that there is clear violation of Rule 50 of CMV Rules and CoP guidelines. Though, subsequently M/s. Utsav filed the application to recall the said I.A. No. 3/14, the averments made in I.A. No. 3/14 speak volumes about the actual truth of the Concessionaire Agreement between M/s. Utsav Technical Partner on the one hand and M/s. Rosmerta and M/s. Linkpoint on the other. 27. In the light of the above discussion, in our view, there seems to be prima facie violation of Rule 50 of CMV Rules and orders passed by this Court. The question is whether the Respondents/officials are to be proceeded against for wilful disobedience of the various orders passed by this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case discussed infra, we are not inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondents. M/s. Utsav has given an undertaking to the effect that in future it shall not outsource the blank plate manufacturing as jobwork and that the HSRP scheme will be implemented as per the terms and conditions of the contract. The undertaking of M/s. Utsav reads as under: *....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notice dated 29.08.2014 and after affording fresh opportunity to M/s. Link Utsav Auto Systems Pvt. Ltd., the State of Madhya Pradesh terminated the Concessionaire Agreement by its order dated 17.10.2014. The Delhi Government also issued show cause notice dated 10.03.2014 to M/s. Rosmerta HSRP Ventures Pvt. Ltd. for non-compliance/violation of the statutory scheme and orders of this Court. We make it clear that it is open to the Delhi Government and other States to proceed against the holders of concessionaire agreements in case of any violation of the statutory scheme and orders of this Court. 29. In the counter affidavit filed by the DGM on behalf of ARAI, it has been mentioned that ARAI approves the prototype motor vehicles and safety critical components thereof, as per the notified Central Motor Vehicle Rules (CMVR) and standards referred therein. On verification of documents including testing, TAC is granted after compliance of CMVR is established. Government of India, MoRT&H vide letter No. RT-11028/5/2002 MVL dated 04.09.2002 issued the Conformity of Production (CoP) procedure and the aforesaid letter provides for the checks to be carried out by the test agency during the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. Consequent to the issuance of the TAC, the CRRI has to undertake the Conformity of Production (CoP) proceedings for every TAC holder. This is to ensure that the HSR Plates so manufactured by the TAC holding companies are indeed in conformity with the conditions of the TAC and the HSRP Scheme. 32. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India on 05.09.2014, it has been specifically mentioned that the role of the Union of India is limited to notifying the Rules mandating installation of HSRP on vehicles, notifying the standards and specifications of HSRP and the testing agencies which are to test the plates, type approval of vendors based on the above specifications and to notify the date of implementation. The Union of India has modified the Standard and Specifications vide 'The Motor Vehicle (New High Security Registration Plates) Order, 2001' and has notified the testing agencies also. In the counter affidavit filed by Union of India, it is averred that the implementation of the scheme in accordance with the Rules framed by the Union of India and 'The Motor Vehicles (New High Security Registration Plates) Order, 2001' is the responsibility of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mentation of terms and condition of the Contract signed. HSRP Scheme should be done by the Concessionaire at the place designated by the State Transport authorities in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract and MV Rules/Order. v. The authorized manufacturer shall be permitted set up other/additional manufacturing units in accordance with the Acts and Rules. In any event, it is directed that any such other/additional units of Utsav commences manufacturing activity in any other location, due process of law will be followed and necessary approvals would be taken as envisaged under the applicable norms and requirement flowing from Act, Rules, Order etc. and the Conditions stipulated under respective Tenders, as accepted. vi. HSRP manufacturers should carry out all the processes of HSRP project in the plant as indicated in the tender documents, namely: (a) purchase of raw materials, such as, reflective sheet, aluminium plate, chromium based hologram, hot stamping black foil film and non-removable snap lock for fixing plates, etc; (b) lamination of reflective sheet having blue endorsement of IND on the aluminium plate; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facturing units must be periodically inspected by the Committee so constituted and report be sent to MoRTH and also to the Transport Commissioner of the concerned State highlighting the compliance or otherwise of Rule 50 of the CMV Rules, the terms and conditions of the contract and also any shortcomings noticed during inspection and suggestions by the team. xii. The Central Government and the State Governments should strictly implement HSRP policy in all the States in a time bound manner. xiii. The Central Government and the State Governments should register complaints regarding the violation and, in case of violations, both the Central Government and the State Governments should take strict action in accordance with law. xiv. The Central Government should create a nationwide common repository of Vehicular Registration Data for achieving the basic objective behind the idea of HSRP scheme and thereby ensuring smooth implementation at the grass root level. xv. It is directed that the concerned shall strictly implement the Rules and also orders of this Court in letter and spirit and not dilute any standards of HSRP, voluntarily or otherwise. All th....