M/S. TEDI (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, v. UNION OF INDIA

10 THE CENTRAL ROAD RESEARCH INSTITUTE (CRRI),

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, DELHI - MATHURA ROAD, P.O. CRRI, NEW DELHI - 110 020.

11 THE VEHICLES RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT ESTABLISHMENT

(VRDE), REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P.O. VAHAN

NAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR, MAHARASHTRA - 414006.

12 THE CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF ROAD TRANSPORT (CIRT) ,

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PUNE - NASIK ROAD, PUNE - 411026.

13 THE GLOBAL AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH CENTRE (GARC) ,

PLOT E1, SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE,

ORAGADAM, MATHUR P.O., SRIPERUMBUDUR TALUK,

TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 602 105

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

14 THE VEHICLES RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT ESTABLISHMENT

(VRDE)

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P.O. VAHAN NAGAR,

AHMEDNAGAR, MAHARASHTRA - 414006.

15 THE CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF ROAD TRANSPORT (CIRT)

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PUNE - NASIK ROAD,

PUNE.

16 UNION OF INDIA

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO

MINISTRY OF ROADS, TRANSPORTS AND HIGHWAYS,

TRANSPORT BHAWAN, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI

- 110 001.

17 THE AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION OF INDIA

(ARAI)

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SURVEY NO. 2, VETAL

HILL, OPP: PAUD ROAD, KOTHRUD, PUNE - 411038.

18 THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR AUTOMOTIVE

TECHNOLOGY (ICAT)

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PLOT 26, SECTOR 3,

IMT MANESAR, GURUGRAM, HARYANA

19 THE CENTRAL ROAD RESEARCH INSTITUTE (CRRI)

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, DELHI - MATHURA

ROAD, P.O. CRRI, NEW DELHI

5

20 THE GLOBAL AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH CENTRE (GARC)

PLOT E1, SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE,

ORAGADAM, MATHUR P.O., SRIPERUMBUDUR TALUK,

TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 602 105

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

BY ADVS.

SRI.K.P.PRASANTH

SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

SMT.N.N.GIRIJA

SHRI.P.S.BIJU

SMT.SUNITHA K.G.

SR GP SRI P SANTHOSH KUMAR

SRI. T.C KRISHNA, CGC

SRI.VISHNU JAYAPALAN, CGC

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 27.08.2025,

ALONG WITH WA.2090/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON

THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

&

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

WEDNESDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 5TH BHADRA, 1947

WA NO. 94 OF 2025

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2024 IN WP(C)

NO.29866 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

HIGH SECURITY REGISTRATION PLATE (HSRP)

MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA,

BUILDING NO. 66/1619, ABIDAS ARCADE, PIYOLI

ROAD,ERNAKULAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,

SHRI.M. JAHFAR, PIN - 682018

BY ADVS.

SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH

SHRI.ABEE SHEJIRIK FASLA N.K

SHRI.ADITH KRISHNAN.U.

SHRI.CHELSON CHEMBARATHY

SMT.FATHIMA AFEEDA P.

SHRI.MUHAMED JUNAID V.

SHRI.RENOY VINCENT

SRI.SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 UNION OF INDIA,

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF ROAD

TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

7

2 STATE OF KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

3 TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,

2ND FLOOR, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THYCAUD

P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

4 ASSOCIATION OF REGISTRATION PLATES MANUFACTIRES

OF INDIA (REGD) ,

F-119 , MAYAPURI INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE -11 NEW DELHI PIN - 695014

BY ADV SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

SR GP SRI P SANTHOSH KUMAR

SRI. T.C KRISHNA, CGC

SRI.VISHNU JAYAPALAN, CGC

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 27.08.2025,

ALONG WITH WA.2090/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON

THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

&

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

WEDNESDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 5TH BHADRA, 1947

WA NO. 2099 OF 2024

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2024 IN WP(C)

NO.18049 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

BND ENERGY PVT. LTD,

23-24 BHURAKHIA ARCADE, 2ND FLOOR, NEAR NAVJIVAN RESTAURANT, SURAT KAMREJ ROAD, SURAT, GUJARAT - 395006; REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI. DESAI

DHARMESHKUMAR LALJIBHAI

BY ADVS.

SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH

SHRI.CHELSON CHEMBARATHY

SHRI.RENOY VINCENT

SRI.SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT NOS.1-3 AND ADDITIONAL 4TH

RESPONDENT IN WPC:

1 UNION OF INDIA,

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD

TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

9

2 STATE OF KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

3 TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,

2ND FLOOR, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THYCAUD

P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

4 ASSOCIATION OF REGISTARTION PLATES MANUFRACTURES

OF INDIA,

F-119, MAYAPURI INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE -11NEW DELHI-110064 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MAHESH

MALHOTRA

BY ADV SHRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC, VALANCHERY

MUNICIPALITY

SR GP SRI P SANTHOSH KUMAR

SRI. T.C KRISHNA, CGC

SRI.VISHNU JAYAPALAN, CGC

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 27.08.2025,

ALONG WITH WA.2090/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON

THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

10

'CR'

JUDGMENT

[WA Nos.2090/2024, 76/2025, 94/2025, 2099/2024]

1. Present intra court appeals have been preferred on behalf of the writ petitioners against the common judgment dated 29.11.2024 challenging the directions contained in the judgment of the Single Bench.

2. The pith and substance of the challenge laid by the appellants-writ petitioners in all the writ petitions is culled out from the following prayers.

WP(C) No.29866/2023

(i) To declare that the members of the Petitioner being the holders of Type Approval Certificate issued by a testing agency that has been authorized by the Respondent No.1 is not required to obtain approval from the Respondent No. 2 or Vehicle Manufactures for issuing High Security Registration Plates on existing old registered vehicles in the State of Kerala, and

(ii) Call for the records leading to issuance of Exhibit P13 issued by the Respondent No.1 and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the same being ultra vires, arbitrary, illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Petitioner; and

(iii) Call for the records leading to issuance of Exhibit P14 issued by the Respondent No.3 and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the same being arbitrary and illegal:

11

WP(C) No.18049/2023

(i) To declare that the Petitioner being the holder of Exhibit P1 Type Approval Certificate issued by a testing agency that has been authorized by the Respondent No.1 is not required to obtain approval from the Respondent No.2 for issuing High Security Registration Plates on existing old registered vehicles in the State of Kerala; and

(ii) To declare that the action on the part of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not permitting licensed plate manufactures having Type Approval Certificate including the Petitioner herein from issuing High Security Registration Plates on existing old registered vehicles in the State of Kerala despite holding Exhibit P1 - Type Approval Certificate is arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, grossly tainted with malafides and violative of the fundamental rights and constitutional rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner in issuing High Security Registration Plates on existing old registered vehicles in the State of Kerala on the strength of Exhibit P1 Type Approval Certificate.

WP(C) No.22207 of 2023

(i) To declare that the Petitioner being the holder of Exhibit P6 Type Approval Certificate issued by a testing agency that has as been authorized by the Respondent No.1 is not required to obtain approval from the Respondent No.2 or Vehicle Manufactures for issuing High Security Registration Plates on existing old registered vehicles in the State of Kerala: and

(ii) Call for the records leading to issuance of Exhibit P12 issued by the Respondent No.1 and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the same being ultra vires, arbitrary, illegal and

12

violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Petitioner,

WP(C) No.10761 of 2022

i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow and authorize the Petitioner to issue HSRP for existing Motor Vehicles registered in Kerala prior to 01.04.2019 on the strength of Exhibit P1, The Type Approval Certificate and provide access to Vahan Portal, the National Registry for electronically uploading HSRP details to be linked with Motor Vehicle Registration;

ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to strictly ensure and implement the affixation the registration mark/HSRP on every motor vehicles, new and existing as per Section 41(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and Rules 50, 51 and 124 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 read with regulation 36 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations 2017 and strictly in compliance with and conformance to the Type approval Certificate issued,

iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent to restrain the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers and their dealers in the state of Kerala from affixing defective HSRP which are not conforming to the Type Approval Certificate issued by Testing Agencies and not complying with Section 41(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 50, 51 and 124 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, with immediate effect;

iv) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the 3^rdrespondent to inform the testing agencies immediately to suspend or cancel the Type Approval granted to manufacturers for issuance of HSRP for non- compliance of standards statutorily fixed and non- conformance to the Type Approval Certificate as per provisions of Rules 50 and 51 of CMVR 1989; iv(a) To call for the records leading upto Ext.P11(a) and quash the same by the issuance of a Writ, order or direction.

13

3. All the writ petitions were clubbed together. However, vide interim order dated 13.4.2023 the Single Bench of this Court issued the following directions:

13. In that view of the matter, as an interim measure and to ensure effective implementation of the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and Circular No.B2/125/2019/Trans. dated 09.05.2019 issued by the State Government, the following directions are issued:

a) There will be a direction to the respondents in W.P.(C) No. 10761/2022 to allow and authorize the petitioner therein to issue and affix HSRP (High Security Registration Plates) on vehicles registered prior to 01.04.2019 on the strength of the Type Approval Certificate issue to them. Their request for providing access to the National Registry for electronically linking HSRP details in the "VAHAN"

portal shall also be considered, and expeditious orders shall be issued to enable them to issue and affix HSRP plates without any impediment whatsoever.

b) The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.35549/2022 and 7089/2023 shall appear before the Transport Commissioner and place materials to establish that they are merely service partners/online booking, fitment, and delivery points and are not dealers. The Transport Commissioner shall consider the materials and take a decision within a period of one month from today. If the petitioners are not dealers, they are not bound to get approval from the State Government in terms of Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.

4. The aforementioned order was assailed in writ appeals and Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 29.5.2023, ordered the status quo ie., the position which stood on the date of filing of the writ petition shall be maintained as if

14

there was no interim order, till all the issues are urged and decided comprehensively while disposing off the writ petition finally. Thereafter, vide order dated 4.7.2023, All India Motor Vehicle Security Association, Association of Registration Plates Manufacturers of India were impleaded and have been arrayed in all the writ appeals, as respondents.

5. While looking at the reliefs claimed (supra) in all the writ petitions, particularly, WP(C) No.10761 of 2022, the prayer is only for mandamus and quashing of an order dated 30.7.2024, which vide impugned judgment has been set aside. The other prayers impliedly have been rejected whereas, the prayers sought in other writ petitions have also been rejected but as an interim arrangement, directions contained in clause (ii and iii) of the judgment under challenge have been issued by upholding the circular dated 9.6.2023 issued by the Central Government and Advisory/Letters dated 8.1.2024 and 9.6.2023 to be in-consonance with the provisions of Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.

6. The background of the litigation, for understanding the controversy in brief, are conceptualized hereunder:

The Central Government, in the year 2001, issued the

15

Motor Vehicles (New High Security Registration Plates) Order on 22.8.2001 (HSRP Order 2001) whereby as per clause 4 of the aforementioned order, a manufacturer or supplier was mandatorily required to have a certificate from the Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi or any one of the testing agencies authorized by the Central Government under rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (1989 Rules), prescribing the procedure for fixation, selection of the firm for any State or State Government. During the currency of 2001 order, there was a litigation in the Supreme Court in a matter reported as Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India [(2005) 1 SCC 679], whereby in consonance with the order aforementioned, State had invited tenders for supply of high security vehicle registration plates (HSVRPs) with specific conditions regarding level of experience, temporal and geographical, turnover in manufacture of registration plates in immediately preceding year, period of contract, restriction of award etc. This was challenged on the grounds that they violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India by favoring entities with strong financial backgrounds, potentially leading to a monopoly.

16

7. The said controversy was pondered in the judgment cited supra by holding that the selection of one manufacturer through a process of open competition would not create any monopoly nor violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India r/w clause (6) of the said Article, as, implementation involved a large network of operations of highly sophisticated materials. 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. If it is found that there was no such malafide on the part of the tendering authority to favor parties having foreign collaborations and fixing of certain qualifications for the tenders was to ensure that the contractor had the capacity and resources to successfully execute the work, it would not amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

8. One of the ground for challenging the notice inviting tenders was that a particular condition allegedly conflicted with para 2 of Rule 50(1)(v) of the 1989 Rules (emphasis supplied). The aforementioned Rules, as they stood then, have undergone changes through various amendments in 2001, 4.12.2018, 11.2.2020 and 18.8.2022. All the aforementioned

17

provisions would be referred to in the later part of the judgment but the Rule as it existed in 2001 is extracted herein below:

(v) the plate shall be fastened with non- removable/non-reusable snap lock fitting system on rear of the vehicle at the premises of the registering authority; The license plates with all the above specifications and the specified registrations for a vehicle shall be issued by the registering authority or approved license plates manufacturers or their dealers. The Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi or any of the agency authorized by the Central Government shall approve the license plates manufacturers to the above specification;

9. While noticing the aforementioned para 2 of clause v of the Rule in the judgment cited supra, it was held that the object of the scheme providing for affixation of HSRP had to be kept in view and it did not entail into any prohibition of selection of any approved plate manufacturer for assisting the registering authority to implement the scheme as the Rule has to be read harmoniously and the objection of the aggrieved party that the State have undertaken the process of selection which was not provided in the Rule, was negated.

10. In the year 2005, another writ petition was filed as a public interest litigation by Maninderjit Singh Bitta seeking the implementation of the judgment reported in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India (2005) 1 SCC 679). The pith

18

and substance of the contention was that in order to curb the growing menace of the crime and terrorist activities using motor vehicles as a tool, the Central Government had come out with a new scheme of HSRP. Rule 50 of the Rules was implemented by the Central Government and instead of following the old method of obtaining the registration number from the RTO and getting the number plates made from open markets, a new system was introduced regulating the issuance and fixation of the number plates by issuing two notifications dated 22.8.2001 and 16.10.2001.

11. Pursuant to the directions contained in the previous judgment, the tenders were issued by various State Governments on the basis of the guidelines circulated by the Central Government for implementing the provisions of the Act and newly amended Rules. The above writ was disposed off with a directions to all the States and Union territories to take definite decision regarding, giving effect to the amended Rule 50 and the scheme of HSRP within a period of six months.

12. The aforementioned writ petition was taken up from time to time in 2011, 2012, 2016. Another matter ie., M.C Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. was also taken up from time to

19

time,i.e., in December 2018, January 2025 and April 2025 and a slew of directions have been issued to the States to report with regard to non implementation of the HSRP schemes in terms of the amended Rule 50 of 1989 Rules. It has also been noticed that the State of Kerala had been remiss in pursuing the scheme and on account of having not taken any concrete action in affixing the HSRVP on old vehicles. After 2001, Rule 50(v) underwent an amendment with effect from 4.12.2018, the operative part of the same reads as under:

(v) the plate shall be fastened with non- removable/non-reusable snap lock fiting system on rear of the vehicle at the premises of the registering authority,

The license plates with all the above specifications and the specified registrations for a vehicle shall be issued by the registering authority or approved license plates manufacturers or their dealers. The Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi or any of the agency authorized by the Central Government shall approve the license plates manufacturers to the above specification:

13. Immediately after causing amendment to Rule 50 in December 2018, on 6.12.2018, a fresh order was issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and High way, as, the Central Government found it necessary and expedient in the public interest to notify that the process used by a manufacturer with

20

regard to a high security registration plates for motor vehicle shall conform to certain standards with reference to the Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989, which came into effect from 1^stof April 2019. Paras 4, 5 and 6 of the order (ibid)are extracted herein below:

4 A vehicle manufacturer shall comply with the following procedure in regard to High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) for new vehicle to be sold on or after 1^stApril, 2019 namely:-

a) The type approved High Security Registration Plates including the third registration mark shall be supplied by the vehicle manufacturers to their dealers, who shall place a mark of registration on such plates and affix them on the automobiles.

(b) A manufacturer of the motor vehicles shall ensure that the requisite infrastructure required for placing the mark of registration on the security license plates and printing the third registration plate are available with their dealers.

(c) The cost of high security registration plate and its affixture on the vehicle after placing be mark of registration shall be included in the price of the new vehicle and no additional or itemised cost shall be charged from the vehicle purchaser by the dealer for the same.

5.(i)For the affixation of HSRP on existing vehicles, the high security registration plate including the third registration mark may be supplied and affixed by the dealers of the vehicle manufacturers after placing the mark of registration thereon.

(ii)The manufacturers or suppliers of high security registration plates, so authorised by the state concerned, may also supply the high security registration plate including the third registration mark on old Vehicles after placing the registration mark.

21

6 A manufacturer of the motor vehicles and their dealers of the manufacturers or suppliers of high security registration plates shall comply with the following specifications, namely:-

(i) The high security registration plates shall have a certificate from the Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi or any one of the testing agencies authorized by the Central Government under rule 126 of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

(ii)The Registration Plate shall conform to the specifications spelt out in rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

(iii)The Registration Plate shall be guaranteed for imperishable nature for a period mentioned in rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and in case of damage or withering due to natural usage before such period, it shall be replaced by the motor vehicles manufacturer or their dealers in respect of vehicles mentioned under para 4 above, or the license plate manufactures or suppliers of the dealers, as the case may be, in other cases

(iv) The replacement for any existing registration plate may be made by the motor vehicles dealers or the authorised high security registration plate manufacturer or supplier, only after ensuring that the old plate has been surrendered and destroyed.

(v) (a) To protect against counterfeiting, a chromium-based hologram of the size 20 mm x 20 mm shall be applied by hot stamping on the top left-hand corner of the plate in both front and rear plates.

(b) The hologram shall contain CHAKRA in blue colour as specified in the Annexure appended to this Order.

(vi) The permanent identification number of minimum

10 digits shall be laser branded into the reflective sheeting on the bottom left-hand side of the

22

registration plate with the letter size being 5 mm:

Provided that the permanent consecutive identification number shall be preceded by two alphabets representing the name of the vendor or the manufacturer or the supplier, as the case may be, for whom the type approval certificate shall be issued by the test agencies:

Provided further that the test agencies specified in column (2) of the Table below shall use the alphabets specified in column (3) and (4) of the said Table as under:-

Provided also that the height of the digits shall be 5mm for the front and rear registration plates and shall be 2.5 mm for the third registration plate, which shall be in the form of a sticker.

(vii) (a) The hot stamping film to be applied on the letters or numerals of the licence number shall bear the inscription "INDIA".

(b) The letters "INDIA" shall be in blue colour with the font size of 10 (Ten) in Type Arial Bold script at 45 degrees' inclination with sequential lines being the mirror image of the other.

(viii) (A) The third registration plate in the form of a self-destructive type chromium based hologram sticker shall be of the size of 100 mm x 60 mm is to be affixed on the inner side of left hand corner of windshield of the vehicle.

(B) The sticker shall be required to be a diffraction foil film with high reflective index and shall have the chromium based hologram embedded.

(C)The details on the sticker shall be-

(a) Name of registering authority:

(b) registration number of the vehicle;

(c) laser branded permanent identification number; and

(d) Date of first registration of the vehicle.

23

(D) On the bottom of the right corner of the sticker, the chromium based hologram of size of 10 mm x10 mm shall be embedded and in the said sticker the registration number of the vehicle shall be in the centre with a letter size of 10 mm in height.

(E) The laser branded permanent identification number shall come in the bottom left side of the sticker with numeral size being 2.5mm.

(F) A depiction of the sticker shall be as specified in the Annexure appended to this Order.

(ix) (a) The background colour for the self- destructive type chromium based hologram sticker for the Diesel vehicles shall be Orange and it shall be Light Blue for the Petrol and CNG vehicles.

(b) For all other vehicles, the background shall be of grey colour.

(x) A proper record of the registration plates issued should be maintained on a daily basis by manufacturer of motor vehicle or dealer.

(xi) The unique high security registration plate shall be linked electronically to the vehicle after its affixture on the vehicle on registration.

(xii) The complete record of all the security features in their possession shall be maintained by manufacturer of motor vehicle or dealer which may be audited by the concerned testing agencies from time to time.

(xiii) The manufacturer of a motor vehicle shall exercise complete control over all the security features in their possession and shall be responsible for the use of any of the security feature on registration plate in the open market either by themselves or by any other person on their behalf.

(xiv) The manufacturer of a motor vehicle shall not be authorized to sell incomplete plates or the security features separately to anyone:

Provided that they shall be authorised to replace the third number plate in form of the self-destructive tape

24

sticker for the already registered vehicles as the case may be as per specification specified in sub- para (ix).

(xv) The type approval certificate issued shall be liable for suspension or cancellation by the concerned testing agency for failure to comply with these provisions.

14. On perusal of the same, it is evident that the vehicle manufacturer shall comply with the procedure in regard to High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) for a new vehicle to be sold on or after 1^stApril, 2019 and for affixation of HSRP on existing vehicles, (emphasis supplied) the high security registration plate including the third registration mark may be supplied and affixed by the dealers of the vehicle manufacturers after placing the mark of registration thereon. Similarly, 'the manufacturers or suppliers of the high security registration plates, 'if so authorized by the state concerned', may also supply the high security registration plate including the third registration mark on 'old vehicles' after placing the registration mark. The replacement for any existing registration plate may be made by the motor vehicles dealers or the authorized high security registration plate manufacturer or supplier, 'only after ensuring that' the old plate has been surrendered and destroyed.

25

15. On 11.02.2020, sub rule (v) of Rule 50 of 1989 underwent an amendment and lastly on 18.08.2022. The said amendments reads as under:

Amendment as on 11.02.2020

(v) the plate shall be fastened with non-removable / non- reusable snap lock fitting system on rear of the vehicle; The license plates with all the above specifications and the specified registrations for a new vehicle shall be issued by the registering authority or vehicle manufacturers and their dealers and for existing old registered vehicle shall be issued by registering authority or vehicle manufacturers and their dealers or by the approved licence plate manufacturers or their dealers. The Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi or any agency authorised under rule 126 shall approve the security registration as per the provisions of this rule.

Amendment as on 18.08.2022

(v) the plate shall be fastened with non-removable / non- reusable snap lock fitting system on rear of the vehicle; The license plates with all the above specifications and the specified registrations for a new vehicle shall b issued by registering authority or vehicle manufacturers and their dealers and for existing vehicle shall be issued by registering authority or vehicle manufacturers or their dealers or by the license plate manufacturers or their dealers approved by the State Government or Union Territory Administration. The Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi or any agency authorised under Rule 126 shall approve the security registration as per the provisions of this rule.

16. We would be remiss in not mentioning that, in the judgments in the matters of Maninderjit Singh Bitta and in M.C Mehta case (WP(S) (Civil) No.13029 of 1985 dated 10.12.2018),

26

there is a direction of the Supreme Court that the challenge to the 2018 Order and Rule 50 cannot be laid in any court except the Supreme Court and the same was reiterated in the order dated 9.04.2025. The relevant portion of the same is extracted herein below:

9. The High Courts are not precluded from dealing with the issue involved in the pending petitions before High Court, provided the same do not relate in any manner to the issues which are considered by this Court. It is obvious issues of challenge to 2018 Order and Rule 50 of the Central Motors Vehicles Rules, 1989 cannot be gone into by any High Courts.

17. Most of the HSRP manufacturers, as per the law, are required to have Type Approval Certificate (TAC) issued by the Central Government through the Authorized Testing Agency across the State. Some HSRP vendors were indulging into affixation of HSRP plates to the vehicles across various states without being authorized by the State/UTs nor having an approval by the respective Original Equipment Manufacturer(OEMs) to affix HSRPs to the OEM brand of vehicles, thereby rendering the said affixation to be unauthorized. For the purpose of national security of the country, aiding in the reduction of vehicular borne crime, identification of all vehicles plying on the roads and for

27

prevention of tampering and counterfeiting, by extracting Rule 50, it was clarified in the letter dated 09.06.2023 that, merely having a TAC certificate from any of the agencies authorized under rule 126 would not authorize any manufacturer to supply HSRP in the open market in case of non compliance of the clause (v) of Sub Rule 1 of Rule 50 of 1989 Rules. The contents of the letter dated 9.6.2023 reads as under:

It has been brought to the notice of this Ministry that some HSRP vendors have been involved in the

manufacturing and affixing of unauthorised High Security Registration Plates to the vehicles across various States in India. These manufacturers are neither authorised by the State/UTs nor are they approved by the respective OEMS to affix HSRPs to the OEM's brand of vehicle, thereby rendering the HSRP affixed as unauthorised.

2.The HSRP scheme is imperative to the country's National Security, aiding in reduction of vehicular borne crime, identification of all vehicles plying on the roads and in prevention of tampering and

counterfeiting.

3. Attention is drawn to Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.

(v) The plate should be fastened with non- removable/non-reusable snap lock fitting system on rear of the vehicle;

The license plates with all the above specifications and the specified registrations for a new vehicle shall be issued by the registering authority or vehicle manufacturers and their dealers and for existing old registered vehicle shall be issued by registering authority or vehicle manufacturers and their dealers or by the license plate manufacturers or their dealers approved by the State Government of Union Territory

28

Administration. The Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi or any agency authorised under rule 126 shall approve the security registration as per the provisions of this rule;

Provided that the High Security Registration Plate including the third registration mark, wherever required, shall be supplied by the vehicle manufacturers along with the vehicle manufactured on or after 1st day of April, 2019 to their dealers and dealers shall place a mark of registration on such plates and affix them on the vehicle. Provided further that the dealers of the manufacturer may also affix such plates, supplied by the vehicle manufacturer on old vehicles.

4. HSRPs are integrated with the VAHAN portal and this type of unauthorised affixation of the plates voids the purpose of the scheme. It is further clarified that merely having a Type Approval Certificate from any of the agencies authorised under rule 126 does not authorise any manufacturer to supply the HSRP in the open market. As per clause (v) of sub-rule (1) of rule 50 of CMV Rules, 1989, The HSRPs with all the above specifications and the specified Registrations a. for a new vehicle, shall be issued by the registering authority or vehicle manufacturers and their dealers and;

b. for existing old registered vehicle, shall be issued by registering authority,

or

vehicle manufacturers and their dealer,

or

by the license plate manufacturers or their dealers approved by the State Government or Union Territory Administration.

Further, the data in the VAHAN portal is also required to be updated accordingly by the authorized HSRP manufacturers.

29

5. States are advised to take strong punitive action including blacklisting/termination against such unauthorized HSRP agencies which are openly supplying unauthorised HSRPs in the market to unsuspecting and gullible vehicle owners.

6. All stakeholders are once again requested to implement the provisions of the HSRP in letter and spirit and to make the process of availability of authorised HSRPs (with proper VAHAN entries) to all vehicle owners of new and old vehicles in the country.

18. Another clarification dated 08.01.2024 was also issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highway in continuation of the order dated 6.12.2018, by again observing that, some of the HSRP vendors have been involved in the manufacturing and affixing of unauthorized HSRPs on the vehicles across various States in India by referring to letter dated 9.6.2023 as well as the order of the Supreme Court dated 13.12.2023 in M.C Mehta v. UOI (W.P(Civil) No.13029 of 1985) for enforcement of prescribed norms much less the scheme of HSRP has been devised to ensure public safety, security and to curb the increasing menace of vehicle thefts and their usage in commission of various crimes. The States/UTs were given option for the mode of installation involving type approved license plate manufactures approved by the State/UTs for old vehicles and the option of affixing the HSRP through vehicle

30

manufacturers yielded positive results. Therefore, States/UTs were advised to devise a plan to achieve 100% coverage of HSRPs in old vehicles ie., those manufactured before 01.04.2019 in an expeditious manner, in order to strengthen the on-ground enforcement as the said exercise would also have proper entries of new and old vehicles in the country in the VAHAN portal. The contents of the letter dated 08.01.2024 reads thus:

Subject: Clarification on affixation of HSRPs on Motor Vehicles reg.

Sir/Madam,

I am directed to say that rule 50 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules (CMVR), 1989 (Annexure 1), read with S.0. 6052(E) dt 06.12.2018 (enclosed), governs the installation of High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) on motor vehicles.

2. It is evident from the above that the HSRPs, type approved by the Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi or any agency authorised under rule 126 of CMVR, shall be installed on motor vehicles in the following manner:

(i) For vehicles manufactured on or after 01.04.2019, HSRP shall be issued by:

(a) the registering authority, or

(b) vehicle manufacturers and their dealers.

(ii) For vehicles manufactured before 01.04.2019, the HSRP shall be issued at the option of State Government/UT by

(a)registering authority, or

31

(b) vehicle manufacturers and their dealers, or

(c)license plate manufacturers or their dealers, approved by the State Government or Union Territory Administration,

3. In this connection, it is stated that this Ministry have been receiving representations from various stakeholders mentioning that some HSRP vendors have been involved in the manufacturing and affixing of unauthorized HSRPs on the vehicles across various States in India. Taking it into cognizance, this Ministry issued advisory vide letter of even number dt 09.06.2023 (enclosed)requesting all the States and Union Territories to implement the provision of the HSRPs in letter and spirit and to make the process of availability of authorized HSRPs (with proper VAHAN entries) to all vehicle owners of new and old vehicles in the country.

4. Further, this Ministry vide letter dt 29.12.2023 (enclosed) has forwarded to all States/UTs the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dt 13.12.2023 in W.P. (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985,

"M.C.Mehta vs Uol" for enforcement of prescribed norms regarding colour coded stickers (third registration plate). It may be noted that this Ministry, vide S.O. 6052(E) dt 06.12.2018 has already provided specifications of such stickers, including dimensions, data to be printed, background colour of the self- destructive type chromium-based hologram sticker for respective fuel types, etc. In the aforesaid order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given directions to the States/ UTs to comply with the extent regulatory provision by Increasing penetration of third registration plates among old vehicles, thereby, giving clear picture regarding emissions standards and nature of fuel used in the vehicle.

5. You will appreciate that the scheme of HSRP has been devised to ensure public safety, security and to curb the increasing menace of vehicle thefts and their usage in commission of various crimes. However, as per the data available on Vahan (Annexure 2), only a

32

limited number of States/UTs have made appreciable progress in installation of HSRPs in old vehicles, ie., those manufactured prior to 01.04.2019. This raises grave concerns w.r.t. safety of vehicles, as such non- HSRP compliant vehicles are susceptible to be used for nefarious activities.

6. As highlighted above, while States / UTs can opt for the mode of installation involving type approved license plate manufacturers approved by States / UTs for old vehicles, the option of affixing HSRPs through vehicle manufacturers is also available, which has been exercised by several States / UTs and has yielded positive results.

7. In view of the above, States/UTs are hereby advised to devise a plan to achieve 100% coverage of HSRPs in old vehicles also, i.e., those manufactured before 01.04.2019. Further, in case States/UTs are facing impediments in notifying authorized type approved license plate manufacturers, appropriate steps may be taken to initiate the affixing of HSRPs through vehicle manufacturers and their dealers in an expeditious manner.

8. It is requested that the provisions of the HSRPs be implemented in true letter and spirit, with proper VAHAN entries of new and old vehicles in the country, in order to strengthen the on-ground enforcement.

9. States/UTs are also strongly urged to actively initiate the affixing of the colour coded stickers (third registration plate) on motor vehicles, to assist in easy identification of the nature of the fuel being used by that vehicle and enforcement of extant regulatory provisions thereon. Moreover, this will also assist State enforcement agencies to comply with directions, wherever applicable, issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Courts, NGT, CPCB etc. regarding control of vehicle-borne air pollution.

10. All States/UT are requested to submit compliance report of HSRP Implementation to this Ministry.

11. This issues with the approval of Competent

33

authority.

19. Since there was already an embargo with regard to the challenge to 2018 order and Rule 50, appellants-writ petitioners preferred the aforementioned writ petitions alleging that, the holder of the Typed Approval Certificate (TACs) would not be requiring any approval or authorization from the State for the purpose of affixing the HSRPs on the old vehicles sold prior to 1.4.2019, on the premise that the circulars cannot substitute the import of the Rules.

20. The pith and substance of the challenge in all the intra court appeals is enumerated herein below:

(i) The impugned judgment is contrary to the current statutory and regulatory framework governing the implementation of HSRP scheme in the country and if the impugned judgment is not set aside, would result into travesty of justice, much less, cause irreparable injuries, for, Rule 50 of 1989 Rules amended with effect from 18.8.2022 leaves no room or doubt that, the object of amendment was to ensure that the license plate manufacturers are not subjected to any approval/selection process at the hands of the State Government being a holder of TAC issued by the agency

34

authorized by the Central Government, entailing into legal and vested right to supply and affix HSRP on vehicles registered prior to 1.4.2019.

(ii) There is no provision in the Rule, authorizing the TAC holders to obtain further approval / selection by the State Government for affixing the HSRP on old vehicles, as, it only pertains to the dealers of license plate manufacturers and not the manufacturers.

(iii) The clauses prior to the amendment provided 'approved license plate manufacturers or their dealers'. Meaning thereby, the approval qua the license plate manufacturers was sine qua non. However post amendment, the requirement of approval has been shifted later ie., after the words 'or their dealers approved'. In the absence of the word 'and', it is only the dealers who required to seek approval and not the manufacturers of HSRP.

(iv) The reason for approval by the dealer, as per the amended Rule, is on account of the fact that all other entities mentioned in the Rule including the Registering Authority, Vehicle Manufacturers, Dealers of Vehicle Manufacturers and license Plate Manufacturers are already

35

regulated under the Motor Vehicles Act "but not the dealers of the manufacturers". In such circumstances, the persons who are already regulated under the Motor Vehicles Act are not required to obtain separate approval from the State Government as the license plate manufacturers would definitely fall under the definition of Vehicle Manufacturers.

(v) State Government, under the Rule 50, does not have any power to select HSRP manufacturers with TAC, for the reason that this authority no longer exists in the backdrop of legislative and regulatory amendments.

(vi) Earlier, there was a provision that the manufacturer or vendors are to be selected by the State Transport to supply the registration plates but it had undergone sea change owing to the amendment of Rule 50 with effect from 2022 ie., subsequent to the issuance of 4.12.2018 order. As per clause 5(2) of the 2018 HSRP order, the manufacturer or supplier of the HSRPs 'if so authorized by the State Government' may also supply high security registration plate including 3^rdregistration mark on old vehicles, after the registration mark has been incorporated. Thus for all intents and purposes, there was a shift in the policy by the Central

36

Government by diluting the power of the State Government from 'selection' to 'authorization' at the best. The expression 'authorization' and 'selection' are poles apart and does not have any synonmity.

(vii) In fact, Rule 50 and the 2018 HSRP order divest the power of the State Government to select HSRP manufacturers.

(viii) Learned Single Judge misinterpreted the Rule 126A of 1989 Rules, which clearly denote that, a Type Approval Certificate is issued to a manufacturer only after thorough inspection by the concerned officials. Also, failed to appreciate the term 'approval' used in Rule 50(1)(v) of CMV Rules which has a different connotation and meaning in terms of the authorization mentioned in 2018 HSRP order, which is totally different to the term 'selection' as included in the repealed 2001 HSRP Order. But despite that the impugned judgment observes that the approval by the state government or Union Territory would mean authorization after selection. (ix). The findings of the learned Single Judge that, all TAC holders, if permitted to issue HSRP in the open market, would result in multiple plates being issued for the same

37

registration number etc, are also devoid of merits, for, the State Government can effectively regulate such concerns and will be able to keep a tab on the license plate manufacturers including tracing the license plate manufacturer, if any vehicle is seized for plying with counterfeited number plates. (x). The notification dated 4.12.2018 contains twenty three (23) safety standards of components in a motor vehicle under Rule 124 of CMV Rules. All other safety components, other than HSRP plates including Speed Limiting Devices, Retro reflective tapes etc, can be purchased by any vehicle owners subject to the condition that the device must have a Type Approval Certificate, issued by a competent certification agency. Therefore, the findings of the learned Single Judge that the State Government's approval/selection is required for the Appellant despite having a TAC, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (xi). In HSRP scheme, there are four (4)

categories, who can affix and supply HSRP on old vehicles ie.,

1) Registering Authority

2) Vehicle Manufacturers and their dealers

3) License Plate Manufacturers having TAC

38

4) Dealers of License Plate Manufacturers having TAC, provided that, they have got approval from the State Government. But the Central Government, by virtue of the impugned Advisory, created a fifth category viz. License Plate Manufacturers approved by the OEMs. This aspect is totally alien to the provisions of the Rules, therefore unsustainable and cannot be applied by the State.

(xii) It was further objected that the additionally impleaded respondents could not have been impleaded, as, the appellants-writ petitioners had not claimed any relief against the private parties, neither they were necessary nor proper parties. In support of the contentions, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia

v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and Anothers ( AIR 1963 SC 786), to contend that when the writ petition is allowed by issuing a writ of certiorari, the vested right of the party would continue to be effective. However, as per the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, if the appellants-writ petitioners were permitted to affix HSRP on the old vehicles prior to 1.4.2019, would not have affected the party respondents, as, it would be amounting to a case of level

39

playing field.

(xiii) It is also a matter of record that, after the aforementioned two advisory letters, State Government had also come out with a notification dated 30.7.2024, directing the RTOs and other authorities to invite a global tender for the purpose of setting up a plant for manufacturing of HSRP plates, which was also, as noticed above, a challenge in one of the Writ petitions, i.e., WP(C) No. 10761 of 2022.

(xiv) This Court, while entertaining the writ appeals on 15.1.2025, passed the following order and direction No.(v) in paragraph 31 of the impugned judgment therein, was stayed with a direction to the State to file the affidavit. After hearing these appeals for some time, we notice that the essential grievance projected by the learned counsel for the appellants before us is with regard to the amendment brought in through the notification dated 18.8.2022 (Ext.P5 in W.A.No.2090/2020) to the extent it amends Rule 50(v) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 to mandate that the licence plates for existing old registered vehicles can be issued inter alia by licence plate manufacturers or their dealers only, if they are approved by the State Government or Union Territory Administration. 2. It is the case of the appellants before us that while the provisions of Rule 50(v) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 contemplate three categories of persons, namely (1) the registering authority,

(2) vehicle manufacturers and their dealers, and

(3) licence plate manufacturers or their dealers, for the grant of the right to issue High-Security Registration Plates (HSRP) for existing old registered vehicles, the condition requiring approval by the State Government is

40

confined only to the persons falling under the 3 rd category aforementioned. The said stipulation in the Rules, according to the appellants, results in effectively excluding the 3rd category of persons from the benefit of the Rule, since the State of Kerala has not published any criteria for the grant of the approval envisaged under the Rule, and in its absence, there is no mechanism presently available to describe persons in category-3 as "approved"

or "not approved". 3. It is brought to our notice by the appellant in W.A.No.76/2025 that, although he has a Type Approval Certificate in respect of the licence plates manufactured by him, he is not able to access the VAHAN PORTAL on account of his being shown as "not authorised". It is his submission that the said description is a direct reference to the fact that he does not have an approval from the State Government, which, indeed, he cannot have in the absence of any criteria published by the State Government for such approval.

(4). We also note that when the State had undertaken before the Single Bench as early as on 13.4.2023, that they would require three months time to complete the process of selecting suitable vendors to implement the directives of the Central Government, the learned Single Judge proceeded to pass an interim order on the lines now proposed by us. However, in an appeal by the State, the Division Bench stayed the interim order and directed the writ petition to be heard. (5). Under the circumstances noticed above and taking note of the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader, Sri.P.Santhosh Kumar, that the State Government has yet to prescribe the criteria for the grant of approval to the 3rd category of persons mentioned above, and that steps are still afoot to draw up such criteria, we deem it apposite to stay direction No.(v) in paragraph No.31 of the impugned judgment, as also to clarify that in the State of Kerala, the provisions of Rule 50(v) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in its application to the 3rd category of persons referred above, shall not stand qualified by the requirement of getting an approval from the State Government. This order shall operate until further orders are passed consequent to the State Government prescribing criteria for the grant of approval, and bringing the same to the notice of this

41

Court in these proceedings. List after three months.

(xv) In pursuance of the interim order, the state has filed the affidavit and in paragraph 3 it is stated as under:

3. It is respectfully submitted that pursuant to the above said direction of this Hon'ble Court, that the State has to file a Statement on the criteria fixed to select/approve/authorise one or more license plate manufacturers their dealers for affixing HSRP on the old vehicles registered prior to 2019 by carrying out the selection/ authorisation process by an open, transparent and fair tendering process. In compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 15.01.2025 of this Hon'ble Court, a meeting was convened by the Hon'ble Minister, Transport on 13.02.2025 and decision was taken prescribing the following criteria to

select/approve/authorise one or more license plate manufacturers/their dealers for affixing HSRP on the old vehicles registered prior to 2019

(1)Kerala-based manufacturers, startups and Public Sector Institutions will have

preference.

(2) Those who have more than 25 years of experience in automobile industry will have preference.

(3) Priority is given to those firms/companies who are capable of affixing HSRP within 24 hours on receipt of the order.

(4) The maximum price for HSRP affixation will fixed in order to prevent public exploitation and to ensure state revenue. Based on the above, steps have been imitated by the Transport Commissioner to prepare the Tender document. Once the tender document gets approved, steps will be initiated to invite e-tenders to select license

42

plate manufacturers/their dealers for affixing

HSRP.

(xvi) On perusal, the State had given their inclination for selection, approval and authorizing one or more licence plate manufacturers for affixing HSRP on the old vehicles registered prior to 2019, having Kerala-based manufacturers, startups and public sector institutions, having more than 25 years of experience in automobile industry and companies capable of fixing HSRP within 24 hours on receipt of the order etc. Therefore, the approval of State Government, in the absence of any clue for going ahead in selecting or authorizing manufacturers of HSRP on all vehicles would be rendered futile.

21. On the other hand, learned counsels representing the respondents, the State and the Union of India submitted that, the word 'or' used in the amendment of Rule 50(1)(v) caused on 11.2.2020 and 18.8.2022 is disjunctive and therefore empowers the State / UTs with a discretion to approve one or more categories through transparent process. If this exercise is not undertaken, it would amount to entitlement of a blanket permission to all TAC holders to start implementing and fixing

43

the HSRPs. It would open a pandora box and there would be lack of transparency, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity of HSRP system by fulfilling the intended security object like uncontrolled issuance, lack of accountability, defeating of scheme's object, non compliance of the court directions.

22. In the old HSRP order of 2001, the position of selection was as if there was only one entity mentioned as HSRP manufacturers and suppliers. Under the amended 2018 HSRP order, there are three entities defined to implement the project for affixation of HSRPs and the role of the State has never been taken out, much less there is no challenge to the HSRP order 2018 much less Rule 50.

23. The advisory letters dated 9.6.2023 and 8.1.2024 are in tandem with the amended Rule 50 but an attempt has been made to give different tinge and color, for the purpose of assailing them and to overcome the hurdle by approaching the Supreme court directly.

24. There cannot be any estoppel against the law. If law mandates the approval by the State Government, any deviation therefrom, would be void.

44

25. Similar argument was raised by one of the members of the Association, M/s Yarya Sekur Pvt. Limited, in W.P No.4139 of 2021 before the Madras High Court and vide judgment dated 1.3.2021, the writ petition was dismissed.

26. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, no doubt, confers fundamental right on its citizen to carry on any occupation, trade or business and the only restriction on this unfettered right would be the authority of the State as per clause 6 to make the law by imposing a reasonable restriction. In other words, the approval of the State is a reasonable restriction. Several State like West Bengal, Karnataka, Gujarat, Assam, Rajastan and eighteen (18) other States and UTs have adopted the model of affixation through OEM and tender process and only three States have been left, i.e., Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Jharkhand.

27. There are twenty five (25) TAC holders who were also OEM entities in other States and UTs, for older and new vehicles, whereas for the time being, in the State of Kerala, it is only restricted to new vehicles. The appellant companies are affixing the HSRP on new vehicles and similarly placed appellants have either obtained requisite approval or

45

participated in the tender quoted by the State. In the State of Maharashtra, one of the appellants had participated in the tender process. In other words, the appellants are blowing hot and cold and the institution of the writ petition is only a purpose to not let any participant to supply and fix the HSRPs on old vehicles.

28. As regards to the objection with regard to impleadment of the parties, it was submitted that the impleadment was already done at the stage of the writ court and there was no challenge to the order. Moreover, the order allowing the impleadment, as merged the judgment and would not be akin to the principles enshrined under Order 43 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure in the absence of any applicability of the provisions of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

29. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

30. On cumulative reading of 2001 order, superseded by 2018 and Rule 50(v), since incorporation and amendments from time to time till 2022, it is crystal clear that authorization or approval of the State is sine qua non. The argument that,

46

the appellants-petitioners having TAC certificates would not require any approval from the State as it would be only their dealer in view of the expression 'or dealer' in the amended provisions of sub Rule (v) of Rule 50(1), is wholly misplaced, as, on plain and simple reading of the word 'or', it is disjunctive. There will be no checks and balance, but a lack of accountability in case the permission is granted to the TAC holders for affixing the HSRP on the old vehicles. The role of the State emits from the power under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as the 1989 Rules read with HSRP order 2018, which is not under challenge and cannot be, in view of the order dated 9.4.2025 of the Supreme Court.

31. The contents of the advisory/letters dated 9.6.2023 and 8.1.2024 do not, in any way, give different tinge and color or interpretation to sub Rule (v) of Rule 50(1), empowering the HSRP manufacturers like appellants to affix unauthorized number plates on old vehicles, without going through the Vahan Portal or without approval of the State Government. The aforementioned letters have been issued to protect the national security of the country, which is of prime importance during the present era and the times to come. Regardless, with effect

47

from 1.4.2019, new vehicles are permitted to ply on the roads only with a HSRP plates through OEMs and as per the provisions of Rule 126A, the accountability of such HSRP is always on the manufacturer or OEM and not the dealer.

32. The writ petitions/intra court appeals are bereft of any particulars with regard to the contentions raised during the course of the hearing. In other words, there is no such assertion in the facts that, any attempt was being made by appointing a dealer seeking the approval in terms of sub Rule

(v) of Rule 50(1) as amended in 2022. There can be another angle to look at, in the absence of such facts, writ petition could have been dismissed.

33. But the fact remains that the impasse which is continuing for infinite period, in as much as that in the orders of the Supreme Court, it has been noticed that the Kerala Government has not been able to give a concrete reply as to how soon it can come out with tender process, in case they intend to fix the HSRP on old vehicles. The HSRP scheme for old vehicles has been implemented in majority of the States through OEMs and tender process. The details of which are given hereunder:

48

HSRP Implementation for Old Vehicles

49

In such situation, the State Government is not denuded to come out with a Government order or a notification for affixation of HSRP on the old vehicles either through two modules i.e., OEM or tender. But in this process, as noticed from the order of the Supreme Court as far as back from 2011 till 2025, State of Kerala has not made any effort and the effort made previously was not a fair work. An attempt made on 30.7.2024, by notification inviting global tender, would further delay the implementation of the HSRP scheme and would be in defiance to the directions of the Supreme Court in the order dated 9.4.2025. The matter is posted before the Supreme Court on 30.6.2025. The said notification has also been quashed by the Single Bench in the judgment under challenge and rightly so an HSRP was introduced only in 2019, therefore experience of two years as per contents of affidavit reflects non inclination of the State. Moreover, preference to Kerala manufacturer is indicative of not complying with directions of Supreme Court and as well as 2018 order.

34. In State Of Kerala v. A. Lakshmikutty (Smt) (1986 (4) SCC 632), the Court held that a claim for promotional entitlement cannot be treated as a public law right, therefore, no

50

mandamus can be issued in such circumstances. The mere holding of TAC would not confer a vested right on any manufacturer to affix the HSRP on the vehicle registered prior to 1.4.2019, as, the scheme under Rule 50(1)(v) makes clear that the State / UT approval as a mandatorily a precondition. The finding of the learned Single bench that, holding the approval amounts to selection, is in conformity with the ratio of decidendi culled out in the judgment in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India (2005 (1) SCC 679) . The regulatory restrictions as per the provisions of the Rules and clarified by the advisory letters, are reasonable, non discriminatory and are meant to achieve public interest in ensuring the standardization and security under the HSRP scheme. In other words, the clarification dated 9.6.2023 and 8.1.2024 are consistent with the statutory scheme under Rule

50. In fact, at any point of time, no new obligation has been introduced and cannot be, as per the submissions of the appellants, said to be arbitrary, ultra vires or putting reasonable restriction in carrying on the business enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Reasonable restriction as provided under clause 6, at the behest of the

51

State, is permissible. This view of ours is derived from the ratio decidendi culled out in Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan and Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (1982 (1) SCC 39), wherein it has been held that the liberty of an individual to do is not absolute but must yield to common good. The limitation is thus inherent in the exercise of the rights.

35. In paragraph 46 of the judgment in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India (2005 (1) SCC 679), the Supreme Court held that the word 'approved' under Rule 50 (1) as it then has been interpreted to include the selection through a process and not merely holding a TAC. Para 46 to 48 of the judgment reads thus:

46.Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the use of the word "approved" in para 2 of clause (v) of rule 50(1) has to be given its natural meaning and cannot be read to mean "selected" through notice inviting tender. In this respect, it is further submitted that the rule making authority has used the word 'approved' and 'approve' twice in the same paragraph. The rule read harmoniously rules out selection of sole manufacturer through a tender process. The argument in substance is that every approved licence plate manufacturer can be entrusted with the job of supplying the registration plates and selection of one manufacturer for the job is against the intendment of the rule.

47. The above argument seems attractive but on closer scrutiny is unacceptable. The rule is interpreted to mean that the registration plates can either be issued by RTO to the exclusion of all others or all type

52

approval certificate holders must be allowed to do business of supply in open market. In other words, according to the petitioners, the rule contemplates that if the registering authority does not supply the plates itself, it allows all TAC holders to do the business without any restriction.

48. In interpreting the rule, the object of the scheme providing for affixation of high security plates has to be kept in view. Where the RTO himself is not making the supply of plates, an approved registration plate manufacturer can be selected for supply. The legal obligation on the registering authority under rule 50(1)(v) to issue specified kinds of registration plates implies issuance of such registration plates through a selected approved plate manufacturer. Paragraph 2 of clause (v) of rule 50(1), if reasonably construed, does not indicate any prohibition of selection of an approved plate manufacturer for assisting the registering authority to implement the scheme of affixation high security registration plates to existing vehicles and new vehicles. Such an interpretation fulfils the object of the scheme. The interpretation sought to be placed by the petitioners on the said para of the rule would result in frustrating the high security aspect and object of the scheme of affixation of high security registration plates on vehicles.

36. Even 2018 Rules also mandates an authorization for HSRP manufacturers or the dealers from the State, to affix the security number plates on vehicles prior to 1.4.2019.

37. We cannot remain oblivious of the fact that, had these advisory letter not been issued, the status of the appellants- petitioners would have been the same as it is now being a holder of a TAC certificate, but no attempt has been made to secure contract, despite the promulgation of the 2018 order,

53

which of course cannot be challenged owing to the order of the Supreme Court, which was immediately issued after the amendment caused in Rule 50 (i)(v) on 4.12.2018.

38. The appellants-petitioners have also been remiss in not giving the particulars, regarding the business particulars and the contracts already with them either through OEM or tender model and the withholding of such information would lead to an adverse inference as per Section 114(g) of the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act.

39. The direction No.(V) in the judgment is only temporary in nature, to remove the impasse, as, number of old vehicles are still being plyed on the roads without affixation of HSRP plates and the security of the State cannot be at peril and implementation of HSRP cannot be also kept in abeyance ,at the instance of the appellants-petitioners through litigation. State is not prevented to come out with a notification in terms of the models adopted by the other States, either through OEM or tender process, but the conditions intended to impose as reflected from the affidavit are wholly unacceptable and amounts to a discrimination in as much as that no person with 25 years of experience in manufacturing HSRP would be there,

54

as, the fixation of HSRP was introduced for the first time in 2001 only.

40. The writ petitions are also bereft of the particulars with regard to any steps taken by the appellants of competing with the other manufacturers through OEMs much less the details of the contracts being obtained in other States through both the models. In such circumstances, cannot be permitted to adopt a dichotomous approach.

41. The expression 'Registering Authority' mentioned in the sub Rule would mean a Registering Authority of the State and RTO in case of Tender model. Therefore the affixation of HSRP has to be routed through the approval of the State Government, in the instant case, the State of Kerala. The vehicle owner directly cannot be permitted to approach HSRP Manufacturer having TAC. The TAC holder cannot be permitted to open a shop either through the dealer of his own. The owner of the old vehicle cannot approach and seek action to affix the HSRP plates in respect of the vehicles manufactured prior to 1.4.2019, as, there is no such provision in the Vahan Portal. The maintenance of Vahan Portal and the transmission of the information from all the States to the Central Register is

55

a sine qua non as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules, as, all the information of the State Governments would be subsumed in the National Register. The entry with regard to the removal or destruction of the old number plates and affixing the new number plates has to be uploaded/updated.

42. Another attempt was also made on behalf of the appellants-petitioners in respect of the expression 'substituted', by referring to the ratio decidendi culled out in Zile Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2004 (8) SCC 1). It was a case where the old Act was substituted with the new Act and the contention raised was whether the word 'substitution' would mean that the old Rule is made to cease to exist and the new Rule is brought into existence in its place. The aforementioned ratio would not be applicable in the instant case, as, Rule 50 do not assumes a different character when it was first time amended after the HSRP order of 2018 with effect from 4.12.2018. Thus the aforementioned argument does not merit acceptance.

43. Argument with regard to seeking the permission to the dealer would render an exercise in futility, in the absence of pleadings but also if accepted for the purpose of argument,

56

there would be no accountability in case of any duplicity in the absence of any checks and balances much less in the absence of any uploading in the Vahan Portal. Though Rule 126 and 126A imposes the liability only on the manufacturer.

44. As far as the objection with regard to the impleadment by relying upon the judgment in Udit Narain Singh (supra) is concerened, we are afraid that the said objection cannot be taken at this stage, for, the party respondents were impleaded way back in April 2023. The aforementioned order was never challenged before the Supreme Court. The doctrine of merger, as enshrined under Order 43 Rule (1A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, would not apply to the writ proceedings, permitting the affected parties in case of dismissal of the petition, to raise the point by treating the intra court appeal as an appeal provided under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the simple reason that, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as per Section 141 do not apply to the writ proceedings. Thus there is no merit in the aforementioned objection and hereby rejected.

45. As an upshot of our findings, we do not find any merit in the aforementioned appeals and accordingly uphold the

57

judgment of the Single Bench. We are sanguine that the State will make an endeavour to implement the directions contained in the judgment of the Single Bench as expeditiously as possible. .

All Writ appeals are accordingly dismissed. SD/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

SD/- sab P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGE

58

APPENDIX OF WA 76/2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 27.01.2025

SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY

THE APPLICANT/APPELLANT

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE BY

MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS

DATED 07.01.2025

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER AS S.O. 1655(E)

DATED 01.04.2021 BY THE MINISTRY OF

ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS

Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE

REPORT NO. 6 OF 2016 OF THE COMPTROLLER

AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA REGARDING

THE REVENUE SECTOR GOVERNMENT OF

RAJASTHAN DATED 06..03..2018

ANNEXURE-A5 TRUE EXTRACT OF FORM AND MANNER OF

DISPLAY OF THE REGISTRATION MARK UNDER

RULE 50 OF CMVR

ANNEXURE-A6 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. RT- 11036/99/2020-MVL DATED 10..05..2025

ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

ANNEXURE-A7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13..02..2019

IN W.P. (CIVIL) NO. 13029 OF 1985 ON

THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME

COURT OF INDIA

ANNEXURE-A8 TRUE COPY ORDER DATED 27..01..2025 IN

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. 13029 OF 1985 ON THE

FILE OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA

ANNEXURE-A9 TRUE COPY ORDER DATED 13..02..2019 IN

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. 13029 OF 1985 ON THE

FILE OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA

ANNEXURE-5(a) TRUE EXTRACT OF FORM AND MANNER OF

DISPLAY OF THE REGISTRATION MARK UNDER

RULE 51 OF CMVR

59

APPENDIX OF WA 94/2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AIS:037:2004 Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AIS:159:2019 IS

PRODUCED

Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE

ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ROAD,

TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS DATED 07.01.2025

Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE VEHICLE DETAILS

AND SCREENSHOT OF THE PAYMENT MADE TO

SHIMNIT INDIA PVT. LTD

60

APPENDIX OF WA 2090/2024

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

Annexure R5(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE TYPE APPROVAL

CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE

APPLICANT BEARING NO

ARAI/CMVR/SRP/2003-602 DATED 07.11.2003

FROM THE TESTING AGENCY

Annexure R5(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE

CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY OEMS IN FAVOUR

OF CELEX DATED 05.03.2024, 06.03.2024,

07.03.2024

Annexure R5(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE

CERTIFICATE DATED 05.03.2024 ISSUED BY

SIAM IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT

Annexure R5(d) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF OF

ENGAGEMENT OF THE APPLICANT WITH THE

OEM FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF HSRP IN NEW

VEHICLES IN THE STATE OF KERALA DATED

14.12.2021

Annexure R5(e) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P(C)

NO. 510 OF 2005 DATED 08.12.2011 PASSED

BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE

MATTER OF MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA V.

UNION OF INDIA

Annexure R5(f) THE TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATIONS DATED

04.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT

Annexure R5(g) THE TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATIONS DATED

06.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT

Annexure R5(h) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE

SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF M.C.

MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS; W.P. [CIVIL] NO.13029/1985 Annexure R5(i) THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 11.02.2020 ISSUED BY MORT&H

Annexure R5(j) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 18.08.2022 ISSUED BY MORT&H

Annexure R5(k) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 16.09.2020 ISSUED BY MORT&H BEARING NO. RT-11036/99/2020MVL

61

Annexure R5(l) THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 09.06.2023 ISSUED BY MORT&H BEARING NO. RT-11036/99/2020MVL

Annexure R5(m) THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 08.01.2024 ISSUED BY MORT&H BEARING NO. RT-11036/99/2020MVL

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure -A1 The true copy of the I.A. filed by the Applicant herein before the Hon'ble

High Court of Orissa dated 28.11.2022

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

Annexure-R (4)1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN PETITION(S)

FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S).

7643/2025 DATED 13-05-2025 PASSED BY HON'BLE APEX COURT

ANNEXURE R5 (n) True copy of the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP(C) 13029/1985

62