Kerala High Court
Bnd Energy Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India on 27 August, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 5TH BHADRA, 1947
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.22207 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
M/S. TEDI (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,
AGED 37 YEARS
PLOT NO. C54, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MARAIMALAI
NAGAR, CHENGALPATTU DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU -
603209; REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI.ELUMALAI
JAYARAMAN., PIN - 603220
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
2
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001., PIN -
695014
3 TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
2ND FLOOR, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THYCAUD
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
4 ALL INDIA MOTOR VEHICLE SECURITY ASSOCIATION ,
45,1ST FLOOR, COMMUNITY CENTRE, NARAINA PHASE-I,
NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY SHRI. T. SUJITH MUGESH, PIN - 110001
5 CELEX INDIA PVT. LTD.
CELEX TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. COCHIN, DOOR NO.
46/1528A, SAFIA COMPLEX, VRINDAVAN ROAD,
CHAKKARAPARAMBU, THAMMANAM, KOCHI, KOCHI
REPRESENTED BY MOHAMMED ASLAM, STATE IN-CHARGE
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.DINESH, CGC
SRI.K.P.PRASANTH
SMT.LILIN LAL
SHRI.P.S.BIJU
SMT.SUNITHA K.G.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI NAVEEN R NATH SR
SRI AMAN PREETH SINGH
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.76/2025, 94/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 5TH BHADRA, 1947
WA NO. 76 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.10761 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
MOTORSIGNS INDIA,
810 ANNA SALAI, NANDANAM, CHENNAI 600035, TAMIL
NADU, INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR,
THOMAS CHERIAN
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI. S.M PRASANTH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, GOVERNMENT OF
KERLA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
4
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERATE, TRANS TOWER- 2ND
FLOOR, VAZHUTHACAUD, P.O. THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA , 695014.
4 ADDL.R4 ACCIDENT RESCUE 24X7,
PANAPUZHA, KAKKAD P.O., TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM -
676306,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SHRI.JAMSHEER KOORIYADAN [ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS
PER ORDER DATED 04/07/2023 IN I.A-1/2022 IN WP(C)
10761/2022].
5 ADDL.R5 ALL INDIA MOTOR VEHICLE SECURITY
ASSOCIATION,
45, 1ST FLOOR, COMMUNITY CENTRE, NARAINA PHASE-1,
NEW DELHI-110028,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY SHRI. T.SUJITH MUGESH,[ADDL.R5 IS
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04.07.2023 IN I.A-
3/2023 IN WP(C) 10761/2022]., PIN - 110001
6 ADDL.R6 ASSOCIATION OF REGISTRATION PLATES
MANUFACTURERS OF INDIA (REGD.)
F-119, MAYAPURI INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE - II, NEW
DELHI - 110064,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR.
MAHESH MALHOTRA [ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 04.07.2023 IN I.A-5/2023 IN WP(C)
10761/2022]
7 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF
ROADS, TRANSPORTS AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAWAN,
1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110 001
8 THE AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION OF INDIA
(ARAI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SURVEY NO. 2, VETAL
HILL, OPP: PAUD ROAD, KOTHRUD, PUNE - 411038.
9 THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR AUTOMOTIVE
TECHNOLOGY (ICAT) ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PLOT 26, SECTOR 3,
IMT MANESAR, GURUGRAM, HARYANA - 122050.
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
5
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
6
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:
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH 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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
8
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:
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH 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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
10
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:
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
11
'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.
(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:
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
(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.
(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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Petitioner,
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
3rd respondent 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.
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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.
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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 1st of 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 1st April, 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.
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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.
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
(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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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 1st April, 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.
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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),
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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.
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
(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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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 3rd registration 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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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.
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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,
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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:
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
HSRP Implementation for Old Vehicles
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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 (1986 (4) SCC
632), the Court held that a claim for promotional entitlement
cannot be treated as a public law right, therefore, no
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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,
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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,
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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,
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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;
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
2025:KER:66131
WA NO. 2090 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
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
