Poonam Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 2041 Del

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. This petition has been filed as a public interest litigation. The issue involved relates to the emblem on registration plates of the vehicles.

2. Realizing the need to have stricter norms to ensure greater security against car thefts and the consequential crimes committed using stolen cars, the Government of India has amended Rule 50 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. New specifications are provided for high security registration plates. In this respect, the Government of India has issued four Notifications which are as under:

"(i) GSR 221 (E) Notification dated 28.03.2001.

(ii) S.O. 814 (E) Notification dated 22.08.2001.

(iii) S.O. 938 (E) Notification dated 24.09.2001.

(iv) S.O. 1041 (E) Notification dated 16.10.2001.

3. The first notification of 28th March, 2001 brought an amendment in Rule 50 of the Rules and set out the broad security fixtures of the new registration plates. The second notification dated 22nd August, 2001 brought into force the Motor Vehicles (New High Security Registration Plates) Order, 2001 from 26th September, 2001. This was amended by the notification dated 16th October, 2001. These notifications regulate the specific aspect of the High Security Registration Plates.

4. There are various features of the aforesaid Notifications giving details in the manner in which the high security registration plates are to be put on the motor vehicles. It is not necessary to deal with all these specifications. However, two salient features, which may be relevant for the purposes of this case, are:

(i) The intending manufacture has to be get a type approval certificate from one of the four notified agencies for its samples indicating its conformity with the requirements. It is only after this that it is eligible to get a license to manufacture.

(ii) The Registration Plate contains a hologram stamped into the Plate at 220 degrees which contains a 'Chakra'.

5. The respondent No. 1 had notified, amongst others, Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) as well as the Automotive Research Association of India (respondent No. 2) as the notified agencies who can issue the Type Approval Certificate. Though the companies including the respondent No. 3 have been given the Type Approval Certificates and are thus eligible to manufacture these registration plates, the cause for filing the writ petition by the petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 on its website stated clearly that the hologram to be stamped by it contained the 'Ashok Chakra' and not the 'Chakra'. It is stated that no person has right to use the 'Ashok Chakra', which is a part of the National Flag, on the registration plates, much less the respondent No. 3. It is not only violative of notifications but subjected to dirt and other types of obnoxious treatment and is thus clearly violative of :1) Emblem and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, 2) Flag Code of India, 2002 and 3) Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.

6. When the petition came up for hearing on 2nd September, 2002, Rule D.B. was issued and in CM No. 9300/02 for stay the following order was passed after hearing the respondents 1 & 4 who were present in the court:

"Having regard the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit filed in writ petition No. 14088/02 before the Court of Madras as contained in Annexure P-5 wherein it has categorically stated that Ashok Chakra has not been notified vide Gazetted Notification No. S.O. 104 (E) dated 16.10.2001 for design of hologram on high security registration plate for motor vehicles use of Chakra and not use of Ashok emblem is to be done as per specimen given in the notification was mandated. We while issuing notice upon the non-appearing

shall not issue any future production of

or by any other person having Ashok Chakra in its hologram.

CM is disposed of."

7. Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 have filed their separate counter affidavits.

8. Before stating respective contentions, we may point out that a writ petition being W.P. No. 14088/02 was filed in the Madras High Court which was also a public interest litigation. The contention of the petitioner in the said writ petition was that in terms of the aforesaid notifications issued under the Motor Vehicles Rules, hologram on number plates should be 'Ashok Chakra' and the respondents should strictly adhere to this specification by using hologram 'Ashok Chakra' rather than 'Chakra'. This was disputed by the Union of India and its stand was that the hologram as specified in the notification permitted only 'Chakra' and not 'Ashok Chakra'. Accepting the contention of the respondents and dismissing the said writ petition, the Madras High Court passed the following order:

"This pro bono publico petition has been filed by the petitioner for Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to strictly adhere to the specifications formulated by Indian Standard Institute for the national emblem Asoka Chakra for the chromium based Chakra embedded hologram instead of 'Chakra' design show in the annexure in the Motor Vehicles (New High Security Registration Plates) (Amendment) Order, 2001 as notified by the first respondent by order dated 16.10.2001 in S.O. 1041 (E).

2. The first respondent issued a notification dated 28.03.2001 in G.S.R. 221 (E) by introducing Central Motor Vehicles (First Amendment) Rules, 2001, traceable to Section 109(3) known as "Motor Vehicles (New High Security Registration Plates) Order, 2001". By a further Notification dated 22.08.2001, the design of the Chromium based hologram with size and specification was given in Annexure. However, by a subsequent Notification dated 16.10.2001, the design Asoka Chakra found in Annexure does not have the specification prescribed by the Indian Standard Institution, New Delhi. According to the petitioner, the Notification would result in dishonour of National Emblem and Flag.

3. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the Central Government filed the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that what is contemplated in the Notification is not "Ashok Chakra" and it is only "Chakra" and the same is according to the specification prescribed. From the counter affidavit we do not find any dishonour either to Ashok Chakra or National Flag. We have also perused the photographs submitted by the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel in this aspect and we are satisfied that there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the grievance espoused in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, the connected W.P.M. No. 19004 of 2002 is closed."

9. This legal position was not disputed by any of the parties including respondent No. 3 at the time of arguments. However, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 stand taken is that as per the Notification hologram 'Chakra' permitted therein is nothing but 'Ashok Chakra' and, therefore, it could use the emblem 'Ashok Chakra' and having this understanding, on its website also 'Ashok Chakra' was used. But, after order dated 2nd September, 2002 the said hologram is removed from the website.

10. Referring to the aforesaid affidavit of respondent No. 3, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Type Approval Certificate given to respondent No. 3 was clearly illegal which should be cancelled and the respondent No. 3 should be restrained from using the 'Ashok Chakra' as the hologram on number plates. It was pointed out that it was an admitted case that the respondent No. 3 had, in the first instance, made an application to the CRRI for grant of Type Approval Certificate which was not done as CRRI pointed out various anomalies/defects therein. Instead of submitting amended application to CRRI as per direction contained in its letter, respondent No. 3 submitted application to the respondent No. 2, another notified agency and got approved the sample and drawings submitted by it. It was submitted that since the understanding of respondent No. 3 was that it had right to use 'Ashok Chakra', in the sample and drawings submitted by it to the respondent No. 2, it would have used only 'Ashok Chakra' which has been approved by the respondent No. 2 and, therefore, such approval needs to be cancelled. Mr. Kaul further submitted that as per the Notification dated 16th October, 2001, what was permitted was only a 'Chakra' with prescribed hologram in the said Notification and it was different from 'Ashok Chakra' which was as per specifications contained in IS 300/1968 and respondent No. 3 could only use 'Chakra' as stipulated in the Notification dated 16th October, 2001 and not as per IS 300/1968.

11. No doubt in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 3, stand taken is that as per the Notification, it could use the hologram 'Ashok Chakra' as per IS 300-1968. However as aforesaid, during arguments, Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 made a categorical statement that respondent No. 3 was not insisting on the use of 'Ashok Chakra' and would use only 'Chakra' as prescribed in the Notification dated 16th October, 2001. It was further submitted that the sample and drawings given to respondent No. 2 for approval were only of 'Chakra' and not 'Ashok Chakra'. Although no specific averments are made to this effect in its counter affidavit, however in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 it is specifically averred that the samples and drawings submitted by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2 were only of 'Chakra' and not 'Ashok Chakra' and, therefore, Type Approval Certificate was granted to respondent No. 3.

12. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by respondent No. 2 and in view of the fact that respondent No. 3 has conceded to the effect that it cannot use 'Ashok Chakra' as per IS 300-1968 and only 'Chakra' as per the Notification dated 16th October, 2001, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

I. Respondent No. 2 shall again ascertain and verify that while granting Type Approval Certificate, the samples and drawings submitted by respondent No. 3 for approval of hologram contained only 'Chakra' and not 'Ashok Chakra'. The matter would be looked into keeping in view that the 'Chakra' is as per the samples and drawings approved in Notification dated 16th October, 2001 and is not akin to IS 300/1968.

II. If necessary, respondent No. 1 shall also investigate into the matter to the aforesaid effect.

III. No hologram of any of the companies including respondent No. 3 shall contain 'Ashok Chakra'.