State/UT Governments. On the other hand, with the amendment of Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 in the year 2018, which has enabled greater participation in the market for the supply and affixation of HSRPs, several other competent HSRP manufacturers have been implementing HSRP projects across the length and breadth of the country under agreements with OEMs/Motor Vehicle manufacturers. Such other manufacturers have thereby substantially enhanced their capacity. The petitioner is in fact one of the largest HSRP suppliers in the country and is implementing HSRP project across the country including in the State of Chhattisgarh where it is implementing the HSRP project inter-alia for Motor Vehicle manufacturers like TVS, Mercedes Benz, BMW Ampere, TATA, Mahindra & Mahindra, Skoda, Volkswagen, Totoya, India Yamaha Motors, Honda, Hyundai and Mercedes Benz etc . In fact the petitioner is already supplying HSRP to about 50% of all the new vehicles that are sold in Chhattisgarh. As suspected by the petitioner, it was only the three Companies who were sought to be favoured, who were found to be technically competent. It is submitted that all three companies have questionable track records as two out of the three companies (L-1 and L-3) are owned by a single individual. There are CAG Reports against the said two companies detailing how they had cartelized the activity of implementation of HSRP projects under State Tenders and how those companies have grossly abused the concessions given to them by State Governments. (Annexure Annexure R-2 and R-3). Further the third Company i.e., L-2 which is/ was implementing the project in the State of Delhi has serious allegations against it which have prima facie found to be a violation of Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 by the Hon'ble
