1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 797/2009 Shimnit Utsch India Pvt. Ltd. ....... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Goa and others. ........ Respondents. Mr. V. Dhond and Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. C. A. Fereira, Asst. Solicitor General for respondent No.3. Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No.762/2008 CORAM :- NARESH H. PATIL & N.A. BRITTO, JJ. Date :- 5th January, 2010. P.C. : - Heard. The petitioner was awarded a contract to manufacture, emboss and affix High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) under an agreement titled as “Concession Agreement”. The said agreement was executed between His Excellency the Governor of 2 Goa, through the Director of Transport & Ex Officio Joint Secretary, on behalf of State of Goa and Shimnit Utsch India Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner Company on 29.2.2008. The Government of India, vide its Gazette Notification, made it mandatory for all vehicles in India to affix HSRP within a stipulated time frame. 2. The Govt. of Goa, notified implementation of Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (“Rules” for short), through the Department of Transport, on 30.7.09. In compliance with Rule 50 of the Rules and the directives of the Supreme Court of India, corrigendum to the said Notification was also issued by the Department of Transport, Government of Goa on 31.7.09. 3. Under the agreement executed between the parties, the petitioner commenced its work at the locations earmarked by the State Authorities. 4. The necessity of having HSRP was highlighted by the Apex Court. One of such Judgments delivered by the Apex Court is in the case Association of Registration Plates vs. Union of India & Ors., 3 (Writ Petition (C) No.41 of 2003) dated 30.11.2004, a copy of the Judgment is placed before us. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to the Judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India & Ors., (Writ Petition (Civil) No.(s) 510 of 2005). 5. In short, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under the pretext of alleged public unrest, complaints and in view of the changed political scenario, the State of Goa decided to go slow in implementation of Rule 50 of the Rules and due to the stand adopted by the State in getting the HSRP from the earmarked locations allotted to the petitioner, affixation of HSRP has become optional for the new vehicle owners. It was submitted that in large number of cases, the vehicle owners have not opted for HSRP, which is against the public and national interest. The learned Counsel submits that the stand adopted by the State of Goa is against the spirit of the Judgments and Orders passed by the Supreme Court from time to time. The Counsel has also referred to the earlier Committee Report constituted by the State, as also the grievance relating to the State's decision to cancel the tender and continuance of the same at later point 4 of time. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that the petitioner manufactures the HSRP strictly in accordance with the Rules which are certified by the agency viz. Central Road Research Institute, (CRRI) New Delhi . 6. Learned Advocate General raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and submitted that the grounds raised in the petition and the prayers made therein are arising out of the contractual relations between the parties and that an alternate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners which the petitioners may avail of in case they feel aggrieved. Moreover, arbitration clause is also provided in the agreement for redressal of the grievances of the parties. It was submitted that the State of Goa, after receipt of complaints from public, considering composition of the petitioner Company, deficiency in manufacture of HSRP, decided to appoint a Committee and accordingly the Committee has been appointed and it is inquiring into the issues referred to it. The State has also forwarded sample plates for getting technical report from the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), Pune whose report is expected by 10th instant, according to the learned Advocate General 5 and, thereafter, within two to three weeks inquiry report could be submitted to the State, by the said Committee. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the State is entitled to terminate the contract. The State has authority and powers to verify as to whether the petitioner is implementing the scheme strictly in accordance with the Rules or not. It is the submission of the learned Advocate General that in case the State finds that the petitioner has failed to implement the scheme strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract and Rule 50 of the Rules, then the State should have to take stringent measures in public interest. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.762/2008, in fact, has supported the contentions raised by the learned Advocate General. The said Writ Petition was admitted by this Court as public interest litigation on 29.7.2009. But interim relief was refused by granting liberty to the petitioner, in case of change in circumstances. 8. We have considered the provisions of Rule 50 of the Rules, the Judgments and Orders passed by the Apex Court, copies of which 6 were placed on record, the relevant documents relating to the execution of the agreement between the parties, earlier committee report, and the affidavit in reply filed by the State of Goa. 9. We are convinced that implementation of Rule 50 of the Rules is absolutely necessary and essential for achieving larger objectives i.e. public safety, security and for effective administrative purposes. It is necessary in national interest too. In the Judgment in the case of Association of Registration Plates vs. Union of India & Ors. (Supra), the Supreme Court has observed that “The State as the implementing authority has to ensure that scheme of high security plates is effectively implemented. Keeping in view the enormous work involved in switching over to new plates within two years for existing vehicles of such large numbers of each State, resort to `trial and error' method would prove hazardous. Its concern to get the right and most competent person cannot be questioned. It has to eliminate manufacturers who have developed recently just to enter into the new field. The insistence of the State to search for an experienced manufacturer with sound financial 7 and technical capacity cannot be misunderstood.” 10. In case of Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court has, in para 8, observed thus : “ 8. Without going into the question as to whether the petition is a bonafide Public Interest Petition, we feel it would be in the interest of all concerned if the States and the Union Territories take definite decision as to whether there is need for giving effect to the amended Rule 50 and the scheme of HSRP and the modalities to be followed.” 11. In view of the provisions of law and the observations of the Apex Court, we are of the opinion that Rule 50 of the Rules is required to be implemented in letter and spirit. According to the petitioner, it has started the manufacturing unit in tune with the agreement since August, 2009. In case the State finds that the petitioner has violated clauses of the contract, the State is entitled to take appropriate decision in respect of the same. The parties are bound by the clauses of the agreement. In the proceedings of present petition, we are mainly concerned with the implementation of Rule 50 of the Rules. 8 It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that CRRI, New Delhi has certified that the petitioner satisfies the conditions of the manufacture of HSRP in accordance with the requirement envisaged in Rule 50 of the Rules. The petitioner has also placed on record that thousands of vehicle owners have approached the petitioner and opted for HSRP. 12. Learned Advocate General expressed apprehension that in case, in future, the vehicle owners approach the State Government with a complaint that the petitioner has failed to provide HSRP strictly in accordance with law, the situation could be irreversible. We find that the State could deal with such a situation in accordance with the terms of the contract. 13. Prima facie we find that as on today, there is no compelling reason for the State not to implement the scheme in its letter and spirit as envisaged under Rule 50 of the Rules. Admittedly, the State has given option to the vehicle owners to opt for HSRP. Taking deeper view of the matter, we find that it would be against the national and security interest. Considering the present scenario and the 9 challenges faced by the State in maintaining the law and order, it has become imperative that adequate, stringent steps are taken by the State to protect the interest of its citizens. We are of the view that till the State decides on the issue of continuance of the contract, scheme envisaged under Rule 50 of the Rules shall be implemented as mandatory one. 14. We, therefore, find that the petition deserves admission by this Court. Hence Rule. Respondents waive service of Rule. 15. Interim relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (g). We grant liberty to the State to move this Court for modification/variation of the interim order in case of fresh cause of action. The State is also at liberty to take appropriate decision in respect of continuance of the contract. At this stage, learned Advocate General prays for a week's time for implementing the interim order of this Court. We accept the request made by learned Advocate General and grant a week's time to the State Government to implement the operation and effect of the interim relief granted by this Court. Authenticated copy of this order be 10 issued to the learned Advocate General. NARESH H. PATIL J. N.A. BRITTO, J. ssm