2016 (7) TMI 1502 - SC - Indian Laws

Implementation of Scheme of High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) - Rule making power Under Section 64 of the MV Rules - Held that - M/s. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. (M/s. Utsav) has got a tender for manufacturing HSRPs at least in seven states by entering into Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) either with M/s. Linkpoint or with M/s. Rosmerta - As per the report of the inspecting team dated 29.11.2013 M/s. Rosmerta-Assam Plant had manufactured a total number of 5725221 blank HSRPs and distributed to consortium partners of all States. However M/s. Rosmerta has not been granted the CoP certificate from the testing agency evidently the HSRPs manufactured at M/s. Rosmerta Assam Plant could not have been verified by the testing agency. 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 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. Though we are not inclined to initiate the contempt proceedings yet in order to enable the statutory authorities to keep a control over the implementation of the scheme it is necessary to issue directions/guidelines for proper implementation of the HSRP Scheme - contempt petitions are disposed of.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Implementation of the High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) scheme.
2. Alleged non-compliance with court orders and statutory duties by the respondents.
3. Sub-contracting and outsourcing of HSRP manufacturing.
4. Violations of Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules (CMV Rules).
5. Contempt proceedings against respondents for disobedience of court orders.

Detailed Analysis:

Implementation of HSRP Scheme:
The judgment addresses the urgency felt after the 2002 terrorist attack on Parliament to check the use of motor vehicles in terrorist activities, leading to the creation of the HSRP scheme. Rule 50 of the CMV Rules was amended to ensure public safety and curb vehicle thefts. The scheme requires technical competence from manufacturers and controlled issuance of registration plates.

Alleged Non-Compliance with Court Orders:
The petitioner filed contempt petitions alleging that respondents failed to implement the HSRP scheme as per the Supreme Court's orders dated 08.12.2011 and 07.02.2012. The orders mandated strict adherence to the HSRP scheme, but many states did not comply, leading to further court orders emphasizing the mandatory nature of the scheme.

Sub-Contracting and Outsourcing:
The petitioner alleged that M/s. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. outsourced manufacturing to M/s. Rosmerta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which was not authorized, violating Rule 50 and court orders. The court noted that Rule 50 does not explicitly bar job work but emphasized that security features must remain under the control of the authorized manufacturer.

Violations of Rule 50 of CMV Rules:
The court examined the violations of Rule 50, which mandates that HSRP manufacturing must be done by the TAC holder. The petitioner provided evidence of unauthorized manufacturing at an Assam plant, which was not certified by any testing agency, thus violating Rule 50 and the terms of the contract.

Contempt Proceedings:
The court considered whether to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful disobedience of its orders. Given the undertaking by M/s. Utsav to comply with the HSRP scheme and not outsource manufacturing, the court decided not to proceed with contempt actions. However, it allowed states to take action against M/s. Utsav or respective SPVs for any violations.

Conclusion:
The court issued detailed guidelines to ensure proper implementation of the HSRP scheme, emphasizing strict adherence to Rule 50 and court orders. It directed state governments to ensure compliance and authorized manufacturers to maintain control over the entire manufacturing process. The judgment also highlighted the need for periodic inspections and audits by testing agencies to ensure quality and compliance with statutory norms.