Orissa High Court

Itriangle Infotech Private Limited vs State Of Odisha And Ors. .... Opposite ... on 14 November, 2025

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 20-Nov-2025 13:50:39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.6536 of 2025

(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).

iTriangle Infotech Private Limited .... Petitioner(s)
and Anr.
-versus-
State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sreejit Mohanty, Adv.

For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Pravakar Behera,
counsel for the
State Transport Department

CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING:-28.10.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.11.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners seek a direction from this Court to

quash the Odisha SOP dated 04.04.2023 as ultra vires and to direct the

Transport Commissioner, Odisha, to permit activation and tagging of

its type-approved VLTDs in accordance with the Central SOP and

statutory framework.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(i) Petitioner No.1 manufactures Vehicle Location Tracking Devices

(VLTDs) and Emergency Buttons (EBs) certified under Rule 126

CMVR pursuant to the Central Government's Statutory Order dated

25.10.2018 issued under Section 109(3) MV Act.Petitioner No. 2 is the

Promoter and Managing Director of Petitioner No. 1 and conducts

business through the company.

(ii) Petitioner No.1 supplies VLTDs/EBs as original equipment to vehicle

manufacturers including Volvo-Eicher and JBM Auto and also for

retrofitting older vehicles.

(iii) The regulatory framework cited comprises CMVR (including Rules

90, 125-H and 129(1)(v)), the Statutory Order dated 25.10.2018, the

Central Scheme dated 15.01.2020, and the Central SOP dated

22.02.2021.

(iv) On 04.04.2023, the Transport Commissioner, Odisha issued an SOP

requiring registration/empanelment of VLTD manufacturers and their

fitment centres for installation/activation of VLTDs in Odisha.

(v) The State of Odisha authorized the Transport Commissioner to frame

such SOPs and to establish a Command & Control (Monitoring)

Centre integrated with ERSS, VAHAN/registration systems, RTOs,

and stakeholders.

(vi) The Odisha SOP, approved by the State Government, sets processes

for registering type-approved devices and manufacturers, integrating

with the State backend/ERSS, and providing after-sales support.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(vii) The SOP prescribes eligibility criteria including local office/presence,

turnover, performance security, backend integration testing, and

district-level fitment/support arrangements.

(viii) Opposite Party No. 3 states that OEMs with factory-fitted VLTDs and

VLTD manufacturers must comply with the Odisha SOP; Ashok

Leyland is cited as empanelled for VLTD fitment for its vehicles.

(ix) Tagging and activation on the State Monitoring Centre are undertaken

after configuration, integration, and registration as per the SOP, with

API credentials issued post-backend registration.

(x) Multiple VLTD manufacturers have been empanelled under the

Odisha SOP; the petitioner's empanelment request was not accepted

for non-fulfilment of mandatory criteria.

(xi) Petitioners and certain OEMs made representations seeking

activation/tagging of factory-fitted VLTDs; the petitioners filed the

writ petition challenging the Odisha SOP on grounds including ultra

vires, inconsistency with central norms, and fundamental rights

violations.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Odisha SOP is without statutory authority since Sections 109(3),

110(1)(k), 110(2), 111(1) and 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act vest power

solely in the Central Government to regulate vehicle equipment,

testing standards, and associated fees.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(ii) The State Government is denuded of rule-making competence

regarding equipment and fitment standards; it cannot frame executive

instructions encroaching upon central rule-making powers.

(iii) The requirement of registration or empanelment of VLTD

manufacturers and models under the Odisha SOP is contrary to Rules

125-H and 129(1)(v), which already mandate that certified devices be

fitted at the manufacturing stage.

(iv) The testing and certification of VLTDs under Rule 126 and the

Statutory Order 25.10.2018 are exhaustive; no further approval or local

evaluation by the State is contemplated.

(v) Imposing additional eligibility criteria, local office requirements, or

fees under the Odisha SOP is beyond the competence of the State and

inconsistent with the central legislative scheme.

(vi) The Odisha SOP operates retrospectively, invalidating factory-fitted

VLTDs approved and installed under the Central SOP, thereby

nullifying lawful actions taken earlier in compliance with central

standards.

(vii) The State's reliance on delegation under the Central SOP (22.02.2021)

is misplaced, since that SOP merely prescribes operational procedure

and does not empower States to alter regulatory conditions or create

parallel licensing regimes.

(viii) The Odisha SOP infringes Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) by imposing

unreasonable restrictions on trade and business of VLTD

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

manufacturers, particularly those already type-approved under

national law.

(ix) The Odisha SOP's conditions (mandatory registration, local presence,

per-model fee, district-wise fitment centres) are arbitrary and

disproportionate, effectively excluding compliant national

manufacturers from the Odisha market.

(x) The Petitioners emphasize that the State's role is confined to

establishing a State Command and Control Centre and providing

technical interface for real-time tagging and activation; it cannot

interfere with or override the central regulatory framework.

(xi) The Petitioners rely on precedents such as All Kerala Motor Driving

School Instructors v. Transport Commissioner1, C. Sathaiah v. Govt.

of India2 and Pharmacy Council v. Rajeev College3 to argue that

executive instructions cannot override statutory rules or restrict

constitutional freedoms.

(xii) Consequently, the Odisha SOP is asserted to be ultra vires, arbitrary,

retrospective in effect, and liable to be quashed, with directions to

permit Petitioner No. 1 to tag and activate its VLTDs in accordance

with the Central SOP and Statutory Order 25.10.2018.

2025 SCC Online Ker 5204

2020 SCC Online Mad 14937

2023 (3) SCC 502

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

4. Mr. P. Behera, learned Counsel for the Transport Department/ State

earnestly made the following submissions in support of his

contentions:

(i) Implementation of Rule 125-H is a State responsibility tied to

passenger safety and especially the safety of women and children,

empowering the State to issue orders and directions to permit holders,

manufacturers, and RTO officials.

(ii) The model Central SOP is advisory and invites State-centric SOPs;

nothing in it prohibits States from framing detailed procedures for

fitment, activation, and regulation tailored to local implementation

needs.

(iii) Empanelment and registration are necessary to identify accountable

manufacturers, ensure interoperability and backend integrity, and to

publish an approved list so that stakeholders know whom to

approach for compliant devices and services.

(iv) Requirements such as turnover thresholds, positive net worth, local

office, district-level fitment centres, performance security, and GST

registration are asserted to be reasonable tools to guarantee quality,

service continuity, enforceability, and consumer protection.

(v) Backend integration testing and controlled issuance of API credentials

only to empanelled entities is positioned as essential for system

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

security, reliability of alerts, and proper monitoring through the State

Command and Control Centre.

(vi) The SOP's pricing and protocol standardization measures are

defended as mechanisms to ensure transparent pricing, higher quality

devices, and uniform data formats suited to State backend and ERSS

needs.

(vii) The State argues that in a market with hundreds of VLTD

manufacturers, minimal regulatory control via registration and

empanelment is indispensable to protect operators and passengers

and to prevent substandard or non-integrated devices from entering

the system.

(viii) The conditions in the SOP are said to be consistent with CMVR

provisions including Rule 48-B, Rule 125-H, and Rule 129, since they

operationalize activation, verification, and monitoring rather than

altering central technical standards.

(ix) Any burden on trade is claimed to be a reasonable restriction under

Article 19(6), applied equally to all vendors through transparent, non-

arbitrary criteria, and justified by compelling public safety objectives.

(x) The petitioner's challenge to non-empanelment is resisted on the

ground that failure to meet mandatory criteria bars activation and

fitment in Odisha, and that the SOP, having State approval and

alignment with central objectives, warrants deference.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

IV. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS:

5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents

placed before this Court.

6. The petitioners challenge the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

dated 04.04.2023 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Odisha,

which mandates registration/empanelment of Vehicle Location

Tracking Device (VLTD) manufacturers and imposes certain eligibility

criteria (local office, turnover, security deposit, etc.) for allowing

VLTD fitment and activation in Odisha. The core issue is whether the

State Government, via executive instructions, can lawfully impose

these additional conditions on VLTD manufacturers, who are already

approved under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules (CMVR), and

whether such SOP is ultra vires or violative of the petitioners'

fundamental rights.

7. Vehicle construction and safety equipment standards are a matter of

central legislation. Section 109(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

empowers the Central Government to specify standards for any article

or process used by vehicle manufacturers. The relevant excerpts are

produced below:

"109 (3) If the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in public interest, it may by order published in the Official Gazette, notify that any article or process used by a manufacturer shall conform to such standard as may be specified in that order."

8. More importantly, Section 110(1) of the Act enumerates matters on

which only the Central Government may make rules regulating

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

construction and equipment of motor vehicles. This includes, inter

alia, safety devices and other equipment essential for the safety of

passengers. Correspondingly, Section 111(1) expressly limits the State

Government's rule-making power to matters"other than the matters

specified in Section 110(1)".

9. In other words, where the Central Government has occupied the field

by specifying standards or requirements for vehicle equipment, a

State Government cannot promulgate conflicting rules or additional

qualifications in that domain.

10. The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 were amended in 2016 to

introduce Rule 125-H, which mandates that all new public service

vehicles (PSVs) registered on or after 1.1.2019 be fitted with vehicle

location tracking devices and emergency buttons meeting the

prescribed standards. The specifications for VLTDs/EBs are governed

by AIS-140 (under Rule 125-H) and devices must be tested and

certified by agencies under Rule 126 CMVR. The Ministry of Road

Transport and Highways vide S.O. 5453 (E) dated 25.10.2018 had

issued a notification mandating installation of VLTD/EB in new PSVs

from 2019 and allowed States to set a cutoff date for retrofitting older

vehicles. Thus, once a device model is approved under Rule 126 and

Rule 125-H, it is lawful for use in any State. No additional local testing

or certification is contemplated by the Act or the CMVR.

11. The Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH) issued a

Scheme on 15.01.2020 and a Model SOP on 22.02.2021 to

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

operationalize the tracking of public transport vehicles. Under this

framework, States are to establish Vehicle Tracking Monitoring

Centres (Command & Control Centres) integrated with the emergency

response system (112) and VAHAN database. The Central SOP (2021)

lays down the procedure for registration and activation of a VLTD in

VAHAN and tagging it to the State monitoring system. It requires that

the device manufacturer (or their authorized dealer/OEM) upload

device details to VAHAN and the State backend, and that the State's

backend verify data reception and health status before activation.

12. Crucially, the Central SOP does not prescribe any separate license or

"empanelment" by States for manufacturers. It in fact assumes that

any device with a valid type-approval (AIS-140 certification) can be

sold and fitted, and directs NIC to provide VAHAN credentials to all

such manufacturer. The only role of States is to ensure compliance

with Rule 125-H and to integrate the devices with the backend for

real-time monitoring. Nowhere do the Act, Rules, or Central SOP

authorize States to vet or restrict which certified manufacturers may

operate.

13. Against this backdrop, the Odisha Transport Commissioner's SOP

dated 04.04.2023 appears to overstep the State's authority in several

respects. It creates a compulsory empanelment regime for VLTD

manufacturers, insisting that only those manufacturers who register

and meet additional criteria can supply and activate devices in the

State. The SOP's eligibility conditions - such as maintaining a local

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

office in Odisha, having a prescribed annual turnover and positive net

worth, furnishing a performance bank guarantee, payment of model-

wise fees, and setting up district-level fitment centers, go beyond

anything contemplated by the central law. The petitioners are already

holding valid certifications for their devices under Rule 126 and AIS-

140 (approved by agencies like ARAI/iCAT).

14. Imposing further approval or local clearance is inconsistent with Rule

125-H, which mandates that approved VLTDs shall be fitted by the

OEM or its authorised dealer or operator as per the central standards.

The relevant excerpts are produced below:

"125 H. Provision of vehicle location tracking device and emergency button.-

(1) All public service vehicles, as defined under clause (35) of section 2 of the Act, shall be equipped with or fitted with vehicle location tracking device and one or more emergency buttons:

Provided that this rule shall not apply to the following category of vehicles, namely:-

(i) two wheelers;

(ii) E-rickshaw;

(iii) three wheelers; and

(iv) any transport vehicle for which no permit is required under the Act.

(2) The specifications, testing and certification of the vehicle location tracking device and emergency button referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be in accordance with AlS-

140: 2016, as amended from time to time, till such time the corresponding BIS specifications are notified under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 (63 of 1986). (3) The vehicle location tracking device and emergency button referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be fitted by the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

manufacturer or their dealer or the respective operator, as the case may be, in accordance with AIS-140: 2016, as amended from time to time, till such time the corresponding BIS specifications are notified under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986."

15. The Act and CMVR have left no scope for a State to require a second

layer of approval for these devices. As the Madras High Court held in

C. Sathaiah v. Govt. of India4, when the statute and Central Rules do

not prescribe State-specific empanelment, it is not open to the State

Government to insist that only State-empanelled device

manufacturers will be accepted. In that case, involving speed

governors, which is another safety device governed by central rules,

the Court clarified that RTOs must accept any device from a

manufacturer that fulfills the Central Rule requirements, regardless of

State empanelment. The relevant excerpts are produced below:

"14. Since the statute does not prescribe, it is not open to the State Government to insist that SLDs manufactured by the State Government empanelled companies alone will be accepted. Even though I am not interfering with the impugned communication/circular as such, I make it clear that the Road Transport officers shall recognise and accept any SLDs manufactured by those companies that fulfil the requirements set out in Rule 118 of the Rules."

16. The same principle squarely applies here. By effectively invalidating

factory-fitted or centrally approved VLTDs unless the manufacturer

pays local fees and meets Odisha's extra criteria, the impugned SOP

directly conflicts with the Central scheme and encroaches upon the

2020 SCC OnLine Mad 14937.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

rule-making power of the Central Government. Such a conflict

renders the State instructions ultra vires and void to that extent.

17. The SOP in question is an executive instruction issued by the State

Transport Commissioner in exercise of administrative discretion. It is

not backed by any State Motor Vehicles Rule or legislation. It is well

settled that executive orders cannot override or supplement statutory

provisions. If an authority seeks to impose additional restrictions or

qualifications in an area governed by legislation, it must have specific

enabling power to do so. In the present case, no provision of the

Motor Vehicles Act or Odisha Motor Vehicles Rules authorizes the

State Transport Department to license or register certified automobile

equipment manufacturers. The Central Government, having issued

exhaustive requirements for VLTD/EB through Rule 125-H and the

2018 Order, did not delegate any power to States to approve or reject

particular device models. The State's role is administrative,

integrating the devices and ensuring they are functional, not

regulatory in the sense of creating a new permit scheme for

manufacturers.

18. The Kerala High Court's decision in All Kerala Driving School

Instructors Association v. Transport Commissioner is instructive; the

Court struck down portions of a State Transport Commissioner's

circular that tried to impose vehicle and equipment requirements, like

mandating certain types of vehicles and additional gadgets for driving

schools, beyond what central law provided. It was held that the State

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

cannot encroach into areas covered by central law or impose

conditions inconsistent with the Statute. The relevant excerpts are

produced below:

"The State Government can also lay down rules prescribing duties to be performed by them and powers to be exercised. However, since the rule making power relating to Driving Schools are specifically conferred on the Central Government under Section 12, the powers conferred on the officers under the Motor Vehicles Department including Transport Commissioner cannot encroach upon the rule making power specifically conferred on the Central Government."

19. Here too, the empanelment and fee requirements in the Odisha SOP

are repugnant to the Central Motor Vehicle Rules and therefore

untenable in law.

20. Moreover, the SOP's restrictions on trade raise constitutional

concerns. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees the right to

practice any trade or business, subject only to reasonable restrictions

imposed by law in the interests of the general public (Article 19(6)).

The petitioners, who are in the business of manufacturing and

supplying VLTDs countrywide, have a right to carry on their trade in

Odisha once their product meets the national standards. The

additional obstacles created by the SOP, effectively barring them from

the market unless they invest in local infrastructure and hefty

guarantees, amount to a restraint on the freedom of trade.

Significantly, these restrictions were imposed through an executive

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

fiat rather than any law enacted by the legislature or even a formal

rule under the Act.

21. The Supreme Court in Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College5

underscored that executive resolutions or instructions cannot curtail

fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g); any such restriction must

be enacted by law and cannot be achieved by issuing a circular or a

policy decision. In that case, a moratorium on new institutions

imposed by a Council resolution was struck down on the sole ground

that it was an executive action lacking statutory backing, even if the

Council had regulatory competence. The relevant excerpts are

produced below:

"43. It could thus be seen that this Court has categorically held that a citizen cannot be deprived of the said right expect in accordance with law. It has further been held that the requirement of law for the purpose of clause (6) of Article 19 ofthe Constitution can by no stretch of imagination be achieved by issuing a circular or a policy decision in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution or otherwise. It has been held that such a law must be one enacted by the legislature."

22. Likewise, here the State's objectives of ensuring quality and

accountability, however laudable, must be pursued within the

confines of law. There is no law in force authorizing the impugned

limitations; thus, the SOP cannot be defended as a reasonable

restriction under Article 19(6) at all. In fact, by arbitrarily favoring

manufacturers who can afford to establish local offices and furnish

securities, the SOP may also offend Article 14 (equality before law) as

Civil Appeal No. 6681 of 2022.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

it creates an unfounded distinction between equally placed VLTD

manufacturers. The classification of vendors into "empanelled" and

"not empanelled" has no nexus with their technical competence

(which is already vetted by central certification). It instead excludes

smaller players for extraneous reasons, which strikes this Court as

manifestly arbitrary.

23. The opposite parties have argued that the SOP seeks to ensure public

safety, backend integration, and after-sale support for tracking

devices. They maintain that, given the large number of VLTD models

in the market, the State must identify credible manufacturers and hold

them responsible for device performance. While this concern is valid,

administrative convenience cannot override statutory requirements.

The purpose of Rule 125-H is to ensure that all covered vehicles are

equipped with functional AIS-140 compliant devices, and that real-

time monitoring is enabled.

24. These objectives can be achieved by verifying that devices are type-

approved and by allowing manufacturers to integrate their systems

with the State's backend for data exchange. The Central SOP already

provides a process for testing such connectivity during activation. The

issuance of API credentials by the State is therefore an administrative

function that may be linked to successful technical integration.

25. However, turning this process into a restricted licensing system,

where only a few pre-approved manufacturers are permitted to

supply devices, is legally impermissible. Public safety does not justify

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

excluding duly certified manufacturers. If any model fails technical or

performance standards, the State can refuse activation or proceed

under the Motor Vehicles Act.

26. The State's role, therefore, is facilitative rather than restrictive. It may

regulate implementation to the extent necessary for ensuring public

safety and data integrity, but such regulation must operate within the

bounds of the central framework. Executive instructions cannot create

new qualifications, approvals, or conditions that effectively supplant

or override the standards laid down under the Central Motor Vehicles

Rules. The proper course for the State is to act as an implementing

agency within the national architecture, ensuring interoperability,

security, and compliance through administrative oversight rather than

through exclusionary control.

27. In this context, the present case also brings into focus the broader

constitutional dimension of cooperative federalism, one of the guiding

principles of our polity.The Constitution demarcates legislative

domains through the Seventh Schedule and obligates States under

Article 256 to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament. This

framework underscores that national mandates must be executed in a

spirit of collaboration, not thwarted by unilateral local edicts.

28. The Supreme Court has affirmed this vision in S.R. Bommai v. Union

of India6, recognizing that cooperative federalism envisions the Centre

and States as partners in the pursuit of common objectives.

1994 AIR 1918

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

29. Viewed in this light, the Odisha SOP cannot withstand constitutional

scrutiny. When a State steps beyond its authority and imposes

measures parallel to or conflicting with a Union mandate, it disrupts

the constitutional harmony and upsets the federal balance. Odisha's

unilateral SOP not only clashes with the central scheme but also

undermines that collaborative ideal, fracturing a uniform national

policy into a patchwork of state-specific rules. Such an approach is

antithetical to the design of our federal polity and offends the concept

of federal comity, which rests on mutual respect and cooperation

between the two levels of government. The success of nationwide

reforms like the vehicle-tracking regime hinges on a unity of purpose

across governments. It is a unity that this Court, as sentinel of the

Constitution, is duty-bound to preserve.

V. CONCLUSION:

30. In view of the above analysis, the Court is of the considered opinion

that the impugned Odisha SOP dated 04.04.2023, to the extent it

mandates a separate empanelment/registration of VLTD

manufacturers and imposes additional eligibility conditions and fees,

is ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder.

The impugned provisions also violate the petitioners' fundamental

right to carry on business, since they are not backed by any valid law

and fail the test of reasonableness.

31. The SOP's requirements of local presence, financial criteria, and prior

approval cannot be enforced against manufacturers who have valid

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

AIS-140 certification and approvals under Rule 126. Consequently, the

petition deserves to be allowed.

32. The Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions:

a. The impugned Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated

04.04.2023 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Odisha, shall

not be enforced insofar as it mandates separate registration or

empanelment of Vehicle Location Tracking Device (VLTD)

manufacturers or prescribes additional eligibility conditions

such as local office, turnover, or bank guarantee, which are not

contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Central

Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

b. It is clarified that any manufacturer holding valid AIS-140

certification and type-approval under Rule 126 of the CMVR

shall be permitted to supply and fit devices in vehicles covered

by Rule 125-H, subject to technical integration with the State's

backend system.

c. The State Transport authorities shall remain free to ensure

backend connectivity, data security, and real-time monitoring as

provided under the Central SOP dated 22.02.2021, and may

require manufacturers to undergo necessary integration tests

before activation of devices.

d. If any manufacturer or device fails to meet prescribed technical

standards or causes operational issues, it shall be open to the