Expressing shock on allegations of an over Rs 300-crore number plate scam in Delhi, Rosemarta Technologies on Thursday pointed out that the allegations were baseless and not based on correct facts of the case.
The so called allegations based on an enquiry committee report, which seems to form the basis of the attack had found only three complaints of alleged overcharging. According to the company, the complaint was made on the behest of their competitors.
Rosmerta has pointed that these instances do not relate to the company and even by the third parties, the charges do not appear to have been levied for HSRP. In any case, assuming that such overcharging took place in the instances mentioned in the enquiry committee report, the same would amount to an irregularity of not more than Rs 3,000 by the third party. It appears that this figure has now being wrongly read as Rs 300 crore.
Rosemarta has pointed out that the total sale value of these plates which translate into 4,44,000 sets of HSRP at an average rates price would amount to approx. Rs 6.25 crore only. Therefore, the figure of Rs 300 crore appears to be a figment of imagination of certain complainants and has no basis in any report or finding of any authority.
The company also pointed out that the allegations of procurement from “unapproved source” is baseless The allegation is that the technical partner in the consortium instead of manufacturing the black number plates itself, got such blank plates manufactured on job work basis in Assam from the other consortium partner.
The Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways, which set up a committee on this issue, however, gave a clean chit to the company. It pointed out that security features were found to be in complete control of the TAC holder M/s. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. ltd, all the HSRP plates were traceable and fully accounted for. The report was submitted by the government to the Supreme Court as the same allegations were also put before them.
The Supreme Court, having examined the allegations and the stand of the Central Government, did not choose to restrain the Company from affixing number plates in Delhi.
However, the company said that in spite of these facts, the Delhi Government acted on the report of its own enquiry committee, set up on a complaint at the behest of our competitors who failed to get the contract for High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) affixation in Delhi, and issued a show-cause notice to the company on March 10, 2014.
Rosemarta pointed out that the contract between the company and the Delhi Government provides a procedure to be followed in case of dispute between the concessionaire and the Government. It requires the parties to have such disputes settled through arbitration. The show-cause notice is a part and parcel of the contract between the company and the Delhi Government and provides for a cure period.
The show-cause notice was issued to the concessionaire, with an intent to cure the defects as alleged, as defined in concession agreement, article 10.1.1. It was bound to do so, also on account of its undertaking given before the Delhi High Court on February 12, 2014 and March 26, 2014 in O.M.P. No. 186/2014 filed by the company that it shall act in terms of the contract.
The breaches alleged in the show-cause notice stood cured even before its issuance, let alone the expiry of the time given to cure them.
The contract between the company and the Delhi Government provides a procedure of arbitration for settlement of the dispute. It also requires the parties to continue with their obligations pending such arbitration. Article 13.3.6 of the Concession Agreement states that.
The Arbitral Tribunal consisting of Presiding Arbitrator Retired Chief Justice of India, Justice RC lahoti, held, “The parties have contemplated disputes and differences arising between them and also being resolved by arbitration while the performance of obligations under the contract is also continuing.”
Further, vide order dated May 21, 2016, the Delhi Government was restrained by the Arbitral Tribunal from taking any precipitate action without permission of the Tribunal.