2004 Supreme(SC) 660

2004(5) Supreme 589
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
S. Rajendra Babu, CJI, G.P. Mathur, J.
Association of Registration Plates -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 41 of 2003
With
WP (C) Nos. 77, 24, 56 of 2003, TC (C) Nos. 30-31, 32, 38, 39-40, 41, 42 of 2003, TC (C) No. 62/2003 @ from TP (C) No. 973 of 2002 and letter dated 19.7.2003 in TP (C) No. 974 of 2002 and WP(C) No. 395 of 2003
Decided on 26-5-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Soliciter General, S. Ganesh, H.N. Salve, Kapil Sibal, R.F. Nariman, Rajeev Dhawan, Ashok H. Desai, R. Mohan, Dipankar P. Gupta and M.L. Verma, Sr. Advocates, A.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General, S. Uppal, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Vikram Mehta, Abhishek Agarwal, Ms. V. Deepa, Ms. Ruchi Khurana, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, A. Agarwalla, K.V. Vijayakumar, Ms. Minakshi, Joseph Pookkatt, Prashant Kumar, Saket Singh, Goodwill Indeevar, Vishwajit Singh, Rana Mukherjee, Siddarth Gautam, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Rachna Gupta, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, R.S. Suri, Ranjan Mukherjee, Manish Singhvi, Ashok K. Mahajan, Nalin Tripati, Mrs. Sarla Chandra, D.S. Bhattachyarya, Praveen Swarup, Vijay Kumar, Banthia, W.A. Nomani, B.B. Singh, Anil Suhrawardy, A.S. Rawat, D.S. Mahra, Rakesh K. Sharma, V.G. Pragasam, P.N. Ramalingam, V. Balaji, Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Ramesh Babu M.R., Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
In view of the disagreement between two Judges regarding the validity of Clause 4(x) of the Motor Vehicles (New High Security Vehicle Registration Plates) Order, 2001 issued by the Central Government on 22-8-2001, the matters are referred to a larger Bench.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 50 and 109(3)-Constitution of India-Articles 19(1)(g) and 32-Motor Vehicles (New High Security Vehicle Registration Plates) Order, 2001-Clause 4(x)-Notice Inviting Tenders issued by various State Governments for supply of High Security Registration Plates-Clause 4(x) of the Order lays down that the manufacturer or the vendor selected by the State for supply of such registration plates may be for the State as a whole or any region of the State-Whether such an order can be made in exercise of power u/s 109(3) of the Act-Eligibility condition mentioned in the Notice Inviting Tenders regarding turnover of Rs. 50 crores or so with 15 to 25 percent thereof in the business of manufacture of registration plates and experience of manufacturing registration plates in 3/5 countries-Whether valid-Difference of opinion between the two Judges -Matters are referred to a larger Bench.

       Held : As per Rajendra Babu, CJI.

       The object of the relevant provisions, which are under challenge before this Court is not to create a monopoly in favour of any person as has been held by my learned Brother. I cannot also agree that Clause 4(x) of the Motor Vehicles [New High Security Vehicle Registration Plates] Order, 2001 issued by the Central Government on 22nd August, 2001 deserves to be quashed. I am not giving detailed reasons because in any event the matter will have to go to a larger bench for due appreciation of the matter. (Para 31)

       As per G.P. Mathur, J.

       Under sub-section (3) of section 109 the Central Government can prescribe the standards for any article or process used by a manufacturer. The power under this provision can, therefore, be exercised by the Central Government for prescribing the standard of the materials or articles or any process used as such in the manufacturing of the vehicle. Reading of sub-section (3) along with sub-sections (1) and (2) will show that it basically deals with the mechanical construction of the vehicle and to ensure safety both of the passengers travelling therein and also of others who are on the road. No order concerning a number plate simplicitor can, therefore, be issued by the Central Government in exercise of power conferred by sub-section (3) of section 109 of the Act. Shri Rohtagi has submitted that power to issue such kind of notification can be traced to sections 41(6) and 64 (b & d) of the Act. It is not possible to accept the submission made. Section 41(6) empowers the Central Government to allot group of letters and figures to a State for the purpose of assignment of registration mark by making a notification in the Official Gazette. Therefore, there is no scope for issuing the impugned notification in exercise of power conferred by this provision. Section 64 confers rule making power upon the Central Government but in view of section 212 the power to make rules under the Act is subject to the condition of the rules being made after previous publication. It is not the case of the respondents that the previous publication of the notification dated 22nd August, 2001 had been made. The Central Government has also never treated it to be a rule. Consequently the impugned notification cannot be held to have been made by the Central Government in exercise of power under section 64 (d) of the Act. In fact the Central Government has always treated it to be an Order issued under sub-section (3) of section 109 of the Act. The inevitable conclusion is that clause 4(x) of the notification dated 22nd August, 2001 could not be issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by section 109(3) of the Act and therefore the said notification is ultra vires. (Para 28)

       Clause 4(x) of the Motor Vehicles (New High Security Vehicle Registration Plates) Order, 2001 issued by the Central Government on 22nd August, 2001 is quashed. The eligibility conditions mentioned in the NITs issued by various State Governments regarding; (1) turn over of Rs. 50 crores or so with 15 to 25 per cent thereof in the business of manufacture of registration plates in the immediately preceding year, and (2) experience of manufacturing registration plates in 3/5 countries are also quashed. (Para 29)