9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of certain clauses in the Motor Vehicles (New High Security Vehicle Registration Plates) Order, 2001. 2. Conditions imposed in the Notice Inviting Tenders (NITs) by various State Governments. 3. Alleged violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 4. Competence of the Central Government under Section 109(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. Arbitrary and discriminatory eligibility conditions in NITs. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Certain Clauses in the Motor Vehicles (New High Security Vehicle Registration Plates) Order, 2001: The writ petitions challenge Clause 4(x) of the Motor Vehicles (New High Security Registration Plates) Order, 2001, which allows the State Transport Department to select a single manufacturer for the entire State. The court found that this clause, along with the procedure adopted by State Governments, violates the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by creating a monopoly in favor of a single private operator. It was held that this action excludes all other manufacturers who may have a Type Approval Certificate from the Central Road Research Institute or other authorized agencies, thus infringing on their right to carry on trade or business. 2. Conditions Imposed in the Notice Inviting Tenders (NITs) by Various State Governments: The NITs issued by various State Governments included conditions such as requiring bidders to have experience in at least three countries, a minimum net worth of Rs. 40 crores, and a minimum annual turnover of Rs. 50 crores with at least 15% from the registration plates business. The court found these conditions to be arbitrary and discriminatory against Indian manufacturers, as they effectively exclude Indian companies from bidding. The conditions were designed to favor foreign companies or those with joint ventures with foreign entities, which was considered unreasonable and without a rational basis. 3. Alleged Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution: The court held that the creation of a monopoly in favor of a single manufacturer for the supply of High Security Registration Plates (HSVRP) violates the fundamental right to trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The action of the State Governments in selecting a single manufacturer was seen as an unreasonable restriction on the right to trade, as it excluded other competent manufacturers who met the statutory requirements. 4. Competence of the Central Government under Section 109(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: The court examined whether the Central Government had the authority under Section 109(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act to issue the impugned notification. It was concluded that Section 109(3) deals primarily with the mechanical construction and safety of vehicles and does not extend to the regulation of number plates. Therefore, the Central Government could not issue the notification under this section, making Clause 4(x) of the Order ultra vires. 5. Arbitrary and Discriminatory Eligibility Conditions in NITs: The eligibility conditions in the NITs, such as the requirement for a specific turnover and experience in multiple countries, were found to be arbitrary and discriminatory. These conditions were designed to favor certain foreign companies and exclude Indian manufacturers, which was deemed unreasonable. The court struck down these conditions as they had no rational basis and were not aligned with the statutory provisions that only required approval from authorized agencies like the Central Road Research Institute. Judgments Delivered: Majority Judgment: The majority judgment, delivered by G.P. Mathur, held that Clause 4(x) of the Motor Vehicles (New High Security Vehicle Registration Plates) Order, 2001, and the eligibility conditions in the NITs issued by various State Governments were invalid. The court quashed these provisions for violating the fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) and for being ultra vires the powers conferred by Section 109(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Dissenting Judgment: S. Rajendra Babu, C.J., disagreed with the majority opinion, stating that the object of the provisions was not to create a monopoly and that Clause 4(x) of the Order did not deserve to be quashed. He referred the matter to a larger bench for further consideration. Order: In view of the disagreement between the judges, the matter was referred to a larger bench for a comprehensive review.
|
