Back
2002 Supreme(All) 1389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. KATJU, RAKESH TIWARI
SMART CHIP LTD - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 21933 Of 2002
Decided On : 10/03/2002
D.K.Singh, R.SRINIVASAN, RAJU RAMACHANDRAN, S.C.BUDHWAR, S.C.DWIVEDI, V.B.SINGH, VIJAY SINHA
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Registration of Motor Vehicles - Smart Card - Guidelines issued by MORTH - Tender conditions issued by State Government - Validity - Whether State Government can prescribe a format for tender or Smart card and charge a fee which is contrary to the rules - Whether State Government has any power to prescribe the form, manner and content of information of the registration certificate or the fee to be charged for issuing registration certification Of a motor vehicle - Whether the Third Amendment Rules to the Motor Vehicles Rules, particularly Rule 2 (s), 48, 81 and Form 23-A must be viewed in the context of the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse under Art. 301 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a limited liability company registered in Bombay, challenged the tender dated 1-5-2002 issued by the respondents for preparation of vehicular Smart card based on the guidelines of MORTH. The petitioner contended that the tender conditions and specifications of the Vehicular Smart card were finalized after proper deliberation among the Tender Committee members. True copy of the tender document is annexure P-6 to the writ petition. Seven bid offers were received and the bid of the petitioner was one of them. According to the tender document Section II clause 2. 1, the bidders were asked to put only three sealed envelopes in one big sealed envelop. The first sealed envelop was for earnest money deposit, the second was for technical bid and the third was for commercial bid. This was as per clause 2. 1. 1. of the Tender Document. It was stated in that clause that the covers should be deposited in the defined manner otherwise the bid will be rejected. Seven bids were received on 21-5-2002 and were opened on the same day in the presence of all the tenderers. Three bid offers were found to be in order for getting the technical bids opened and evaluated. Technical bids of all the three bidders were examined and all the three were found technically acceptable. The financial bids of all these three bidders were opened on 22-5-2002 in presence of these three bidders and the lowest bidder was recommended to the Government for acceptance. True copy of the recommendation of the Tender Committee dated 22-5-2002 is annexure CA-4 to the counter-affidavit.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the State Government does not have any power to prescribe the form, manner and content of information of the registration certificate or the fee to be charged for issuing registration certification Of a motor vehicle, since the central Govt. has already done so in the Motor vehicles Rules. The State Government by issuing a tender cannot prescribe the form contents of information, and fee contrary to the Rules. The Court further held that the Third Amendment Rules to the Motor Vehicles Rules, particularly Rule 2 (s), 48, 81 and Form 23-A must be viewed in the context of the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse under Art. 301 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government can prescribe a format for tender or Smart card and charge a fee which is contrary to the rules? 2. Whether State Government has any power to prescribe the form, manner and content of information of the registration certificate or the fee to be charged for issuing registration certification Of a motor vehicle? 3. Whether the Third Amendment Rules to the Motor Vehicles Rules, particularly Rule 2 (s), 48, 81 and Form 23-A must be viewed in the context of the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse under Art. 301 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Government does not have any power to prescribe the form, manner and content of information of the registration certificate or the fee to be charged for issuing registration certification Of a motor vehicle, since the central Govt. has already done so in the Motor vehicles Rules. 2. The State Government by issuing a tender cannot prescribe the form contents of information, and fee contrary to the Rules. 3. The Third Amendment Rules to the Motor Vehicles Rules, particularly Rule 2 (s), 48, 81 and Form 23-A must be viewed in the context of the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse under Art. 301 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed. The impugned tender document, the tender bid of the respondent No. 3, as well as its acceptance, were quashed. A mandamus was issued to the respondents readvertise the contract in the light of the observations made in this judgment and the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules as amended, and not in accordance with the tender document which is Annexure P-6 to the writ petition.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition and the connected writ petition No. 21933 of 2002 are being disposed off by a common judgment.
( 2 ) THIS writ petition illustrates how the new technology which has changed the word in recent years has entered our law Courts.
( 3 ) THE petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the tender dated 1-5-2002 issued by the respondents, copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition, and for a mandamus to the respondents directing them to consider all the bids of the tenders who qualify the condition as mentioned in the tender clause 2. 21 and thereafter evaluate the technical bids of those who qualify in the technical specifications aa provided in the guidelines dated 17-10-2001 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as Morth) and to abide by the terms and conditions, directions and guidelines issued by the MORTH.
( 4 ) HEARD Sri Raju Ramchandran, and sri S. C. Budhwar learned Senior Advocates for the petitioner, and Sri V. B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the impleaded respondent Zodiac. com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and learned Standing Counsel for the State government.
( 5 ) THE petitioner is a limited liability company registered in Bombay having its administrative office at Delhi. The petitioner no. 1 carries on the business of Smart Card integration projects for transport and allied sectors. It is alleged in paragraph 1 of the writ petition that the petitioner No. 1 is one of the prominent and successful companies in providing the requisite technological and other inputs in ensuring the provision of smart Card system for transport sector, and is capable to promote vehicle management and its implementation for being utilized for the safe and sound running of the transport administration through out the country. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner No. 1 has successfully carried out the project of haying driving licences on Smart Card in the State of Gujarat, Driving licences, registration certificate for transport vehicles and permits in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and social security Smart Card-cum-driving licence in goa.
( 6 ) IN paragraph 3 of the writ petition it is alleged that in June 2000 the Ministry of surface Transport (as it was then known)in collaboration with the National Information Centre and Smart Card Applications forum of India (SCAFI) organized an all India conference. The theme of the conference was induction of information technology in the Road Transport Sector. The conference recommended that in order to speed up in- duction of information technology it is necessary to standardize various functions and technologies. This is vital because the Motor Vehicles Act under which these tasks are performed is a central Act which needs to be followed uniformly throughout the country. The Government of India, Ministry of surface Transport constituted an Apex group to consider the various issues relating to induction of information technology in the road transport sector. The Apex group was to consider the recommendations of various technical aspects for the above purpose and to make recommendations for the same. The Apex group submitted its report dated 11-1-2001 to the Government of India. The Apex group studied the options of the three technologies available for use in transport sector for the whole country viz. (i) Microprocessor based (chip) Technological, (ii) Integrated Circuit memory and (iii)optical memory.
( 7 ) AFTER evaluation of the three technologies the Committee recommended as under :"microprocessor technology provides a technology which is much more secure and can have in built function which can help provide effective security to the stored data. The memory based cards, where the security functions are not embedded in the card and are handled through an external device, thus splitting the security elements in the chain, makes it more vulnerable as compare
