MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA Vs. UIO

JUDGEMENT

(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 in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Ors. 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 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. Subsequently, two more notificationsdated 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 and 12 it was noted as follows:

(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.) 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 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: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_625_SUPREME3_2008Html1.htm</FRM>