1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
IA NOS.10 AND 11 of 2010
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.510 OF 2005
Maninderjit Singh Bitta … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors.        … Respondents
WITH
IA NO.12 of 2010 IN IA NO.10 of 2010
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.510 OF 2005
O R D E R
Government of India, on 28
th
 March, 2001, issued a
notification under the provisions of Section 41(6) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) read with Rule 50 of the Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, ‘the Rules’) for implementation of the
provisions of the Act.  This notification sought to introduce a new
scheme regulating issuance and fixation of number plates.  In terms
of sub-section (3) of Section 109 of the Act, the Central Government2
issued an order dated 22
nd
 August, 2001 which dealt with various
facets of manufacture, supply and fixation of new High Security
Registration Plates (HSRP).  The Central Government also issued a
notification dated 16
th
 October, 2001 for further implementation of the
said order and the scheme. Various States had invited tenders in
order to implement the scheme.
A writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No.41 of 2003 was filed
in this Court challenging the Central Government’s power to issue
such notification as well as terms and conditions of the tender
process.  In addition to the above writ petition before this Court,
various other writ petitions were filed in different High Courts raising
the same challenge.  These writ petitions came to be transferred to
this Court.  All the transferred cases along with Writ Petition (C) No.
41 of 2003 were referred to a larger Bench of three Judges of this
Court by order of reference dated 26
th
 May, 2005 in the case of
Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India [(2004) 5 SCC
364], as there was difference of opinion between the learned
Members of the Bench dealing with the case.  The three Judge Bench
finally disposed of the writ petitions vide its order dated 30
th
November, 2004 reported in (2005) 1 SCC 679.  While dismissing the
writ petition and the connected matters, the Bench rejected the3
challenge made to the provisions of the Rules, statutory order issued
by the Central Government and the tender conditions and also issued
certain directions for appropriate implementation of the scheme.
The matter did not rest there.  Different States did not
comply with the Rules, scheme and/or statutory order which resulted
in filing of the present writ petition, being Writ Petition (C) No.510 of
2005. This writ petition also came to be disposed of by a three Judge
Bench of this Court in its judgment titled as Maninderjit Singh Bitta v.
Union of India [(2008) 7 SCC 328].  It will be appropriate to refer to
the operative part of the judgment:
“5. Grievance of the petitioner and the intervener i.e. All
India Motor Vehicles Security Association is that
subsequent to the judgment the scheme of HSRP is yet not
implemented in any State except the State of Meghalaya
and other States are still repeating the processing of the
tender.  The prayer therefore is that the purpose of
introducing the scheme should be fulfilled (sic- in) letter
and spirit.  The objective being public safety and security
there should not be any lethargy.  It is pointed out that most
of the States floated the tenders and thereafter without any
reason the process has been slowed down…
XXX XXX XXX
9. Needless to say the scheme appears to have been
introduced keeping in view the public safety and security of
the citizens.  Let necessary decisions be taken, if not
already taken, within a period of six months from today.
While taking the decision the aspects highlighted by this
Court in the earlier decision needless to say shall be kept
in view.”4
Despite the above judgments of the Court, most of the
States have failed to implement the scheme in its true spirit.  This
resulted in filing of IA No.5 in Writ Petition (C) No.510 of 2005 where
the applicant prayed for a clarification of order dated 8
th
 May, 2008
stating that some of the States were carrying the impression as if they
had the discretion to give effect to the amended Rules and the
scheme.  Vide order dated 5
th
 May, 2009, the Court clarified the doubt
and unambiguously stated that there is no discretion given to the
States/Union Territories not to give effect to the amended Rule 50, the
scheme of HSRP and modalities to be followed in pursuance thereof.
In the meanwhile, IA No. 10 of 2010, in Writ Petition No. 510
of 2005, was filed by the State of Kerala seeking extension of time to
comply with the scheme and orders of this Court.  They prayed for six
months’ extension with effect from 1
st
 June, 2010.  One of the main
grounds taken by the State of Kerala was that it was finalizing the
modalities needed for implementation of the HSRP scheme in the
State and was also finding out the cheapest rate in the  market for
benefit of public.  This application was opposed by   the petitioner and
during the course of arguments, applicant State of Kerala also
pointed out that it had financial constraints as well in  implementation
of   the  scheme.  An order was passed by this Court on 13
th
 August,5
2010 noticing the grounds taken up by the State of Kerala and they
were permitted to implement the scheme phase-wise and at the
places indicated in that order.
The petitioner filed IA No.12 of 2010 in IA No.10 of 2010 in
Writ Petition (C) No. 510 of 2005 praying for modification of the order
dated 13
th
 August, 2010 stating that the State of Kerala has no such
financial crisis that it could not implement the scheme immediately.  In
that application, case was also made out that a large number of
States were not carrying out the orders of the Court and, in fact, had
violated the same with impunity.  Prayer was also made for issuance
of a direction to the State Governments/Union Territories to
implement the scheme and statutory provisions within the time
already extended.
The State of Himachal Pradesh has also filed an application
being IA No.11 of 2010 in Writ Petition (C) No. 510 of 2005 praying for
extension of at least six months to complete the process and file the
compliance in this Court.
This is how all these three applications came up for hearing
before the Court.  The matter was heard and reserved for orders on6
11
th
 March, 2011.  During the course of hearing, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State of Kerala, had pointed out that in
three cities, i.e. Trivandrum, Cochin and Calicut, the tender
documents for manufacture and procurement of HSRP have already
been issued and further steps are being taken to implement the
scheme.  It was not pressed by the State of Kerala that it should be
allowed to complete the implementation of the scheme and the
statutory provisions in a phased manner as it would ensure its best to
implement the same in the extended period or at the earliest.
In the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner dated 11
th
August, 2010, it has been specifically averred that despite repeated
directions and extensions granted by this Court to implement the
scheme, several States/Union Territories have not carried out their
statutory functions for implementation of HSRP scheme as per law.
In fact, except the States of Meghalaya, Sikkim and Goa, no other
State or Union Territory had implemented the said scheme.  A chart
depicting the status of implementation of the HSRP scheme in
respective States and Union Territories was separately filed on record
which reads as under :
S.
No.
State Status as on Date7
1. Andhra Pradesh No Action yet.
2. Arunachal Pradesh No Action yet.
3. Assam Tender issued on 07.06.10 but bid
submission date is deferred till further
notice.
4. Andaman &
Nicobar
Tender issued and submission on 18
March 2011
5. Bihar Tender issued in Apr'08 and cancelled on
June 2010. Fresh tender yet to be
issued.
6 Chhattisgarh Tender NIT issued in November 07. The
submissions of the bids were deferred
after the pre bid meeting. No further
action has been taken by the State
7. Chandigarh No action yet.
8. Daman & Diu Tender issued in Apr'09 and cancelled in
Apr' 2010. Fresh tender yet to be issued.
9. Dadar & Nagar
Haveli
Tender issued in Apr'09 and cancelled in
Apr' 2010. Fresh tender yet to be issued.
10. Delhi No Action yet.
11. Government of
India
No direct action for implementation of the
scheme required to be taken by GOI.
12. Goa Scheme has been implemented in
August 2009
13. Gujarat No Action yet.
14. Haryana No Action yet.
15. Himachal Pradesh No Action yet.
16.
Jharkhand
No Action yet.
17. J & K No Action yet.
18. Karnataka Agreement for implementation signed
with the Vendor in 2006. Price
Notification and Implementation date is
pending since last 4 years. Now State
govt, cancelled the agreement and
matter is pending before the Karnataka
High court against cancellation of tender.
19 Kerala Notice Inviting Tender issued on 06.10.10
submission date for tenders for 3 districts
was fixed on 31
st
 Jan 2011, but Tonnjes
Eastern Security Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
challenge the tender conditions at High
Court of Kerala and the Hon'ble High
Court has granted stay on the
proceedings till further order.
20 Lakshadweep Tender issued in April 2008 and financial
bids of technically qualified bidders were8
opened. Subsequently the tender has
been cancelled.
21 Manipur The State Government had floated the
tender and after processing and has
identified the lowest bidder. No further
progress in terms of implementation.
22 Meghalaya Scheme has been implemented in
August 2006.
23 Mizoram The State Government had floated the
tender and after processing and has
identified the lowest bidder. No further
progress.
24 Madhya Pradesh No action yet.
25 Maharashtra Tender issued in June'07.Financial bids
were open in 2008.Now State
Government wants to add new RFID
technology in HSRP and they cancelled
the Tender. But Ministry of Road
Transport & Highway filed a Review
petition at Bombay High Court and
Stating that Modus operandi of State
Government is illegal and no power to
add/delete any feature of HSRP or to
amend/modify any provision of the rule
made under a Central Statute.
26 Nagaland Contract signed. Implementation in
progress. Price Notification awaited.
27 Orissa Pre-Qualification Bid got opened on
04.06.2010 and further the evaluation
process is currently going on by the State
Government.
28 Pondicherry Tender floated in Apr'07. Financial bids
were open but final decision yet to be
taken.
29 Punjab No action yet.
30 Rajasthan The G.O. was issued on 29
th
 September
2008 notifying 11
th
 March 2009 as the
implementation date. But due to the
political rivalry the new Government
suspended the contract on 6 March'09
for an indefinite period.
31 Sikkim Scheme implemented in March 2009.
32 Tripura Fresh tender issued on 15 January 2011
but unqualified bidder challenge the
earlier tender which was cancelled.
Matter is pending before Guahati High
Court at Agartalla Bench.
33 Tamil Nadu No action yet.
34 Uttar Pradesh No action yet.
35 Uttarakhand Fresh tender was issued in 07 July 2010.
Submission of bids deferred indefinitely.
36 West Bengal Tender issued but final decision yet to be9
taken.
A bare reading of this chart shows that a large number of
States have not yet taken any action whatsoever for implementation
of the scheme.
In other States, though tenders have been issued long time
back, no further step has been taken to complete the implementation
of the scheme and ensure installation of HSRP within their respective
jurisdictions.  In other words, all the States/Union Territories can be
categorised into three different classes.  Firstly, the ones who have
completely implemented the scheme and this fact is not disputed by
the petitioner.  These are States of Meghalaya, Sikkim and Goa.
Secondly, the States where tenders have been invited quite some
time ago but they could not be finalized for one reason or the other.
Some States in this category, i.e.  Tripura, Karnataka, Maharashtra
and Kerala, have referred to proceedings in regard to tender process
being pending before the High Courts of the respective States as
cause of the delay in implementation of the scheme. In this category,
there are States which had invited tenders some time back but
thereafter no further step has been taken by them to complete the
implementation of the scheme without any reasonable explanation.
Thirdly, the States which have not taken any action whatsoever,10
despite judgments and specific orders of this Court right from the year
2004 till date.
Of course, conduct of all these States cannot be painted with
the same brush and they deserve to be dealt with in their respective
categories and in accordance with law.  The States which have
implemented the scheme deserve a word of appreciation from this
Court with a further observation that they should continue to
implement the scheme more effectively to ensure public safety.
All those States which have invited tenders but have not
finalized the same resulting in non-implementation of the scheme and
the statutory provisions needs to be cautioned that just taking a step
in furtherance to the order of the Court cannot be even called
substantial compliance much less complete compliance of the same
in its true spirit and substance.  Thus, they need to be directed to
complete the process and ensure implementation of HSRP scheme
at the earliest.  Such directions that too with a time bound programme
are necessary as that alone would be in the interest of the State as
well as public at large.
The last and the most disobedient category is of the States11
which have not even initiated any process for compliance of their
statutory duty, obedience to the orders of this Court and
implementation of a duly notified scheme.  Till date, several of these
States have not even approached this Court, during this long period,
for any extension of time giving reasons for non-compliance of the
orders of this Court or the statutory provisions as they have not filed
any application for the same to enable them to fulfill their statutory
obligations and obedience of the orders of the Court.  The irresistible
and only conclusion that can be drawn from the facts on record and
the above circumstances is that it is an intentional disobedience of
the orders of the Court by the concerned Authorities in the respective
States.  The obedience of orders of this Court is necessary for
preserving the integrity of this constitutional institution and to put
forward this point reference can be made to the following paragraph
appearing in the judgment of this Court in the case of Achhan Rizvi
(II) v. State of U.P. [(1994) 6 SCC 752] :
“7. It appears to us that if no assurance of an effective
implementation of the Court’s orders is forthcoming from
the State Government, it will be our constitutional duty not
merely to expect but to exact obedience in an appropriate
manner. This step, we believe, would become necessary to
preserve the meaning and integrity of the constitutional
institutions and their interrelationships, essential to the
preservation of the chosen way of life of the Indian people
under the Constitution.”
Disobedience of Court orders, more so persistent12
disobedience, has been viewed very seriously by the concerned
Courts.  It is not only desirable but an essential requirement of law
that the concerned authorities/executive should carry out their
statutory functions and comply with the orders of the Court within the
stipulated time.  Such course attains greater significance where the
statutory law is coupled with the directions issued by a Court of law in
relation to attainment of a public purpose and public interest.  In the
present days, safety of the citizens is of paramount concern for the
State and all its authorities.  The directions issued by this Court for
implementation of HSRP scheme sought to achieve such interest as
well as it would be a step forward even in the field of investigation in
case a vehicle is used in commitment of an offence or a crime.  As
already noticed, there are large number of States who have not taken
any action in furtherance to judgments and directions of this Court
and their statutory obligations.  This conduct of the States compels us
at least to begin with direction for the presence of the senior officers
in charge of such affairs in the respective State Governments before
this Court.  At the first instance, we would restrict this direction only to
defaulting States of Delhi, Punjab & Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, we
direct Secretary, Transport/Commissioner, State Transport Authority
of these States to be present in this Court on the next date of hearing
and show cause why the Court should not initiate proceedings against13
them under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.  De
hors the issuance of the above show cause notice, these States are
also ordered to comply with other directions contained in this Order.
In regard to other defaulting States, before we invoke the
extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for initiation of contempt
proceedings against the concerned authorities of the respective
defaulting States, we consider it appropriate to require the Secretary
(Transport) and/or Commissioner, State Transport Authority of each of
the States in the third category to file a personal affidavit stating the
reasons for not complying with the orders of this Court.  If any steps
of any kind in furtherance to the judgments of this Court aforereferred, satisfying requirements of amended Rule 50 of the Rules for
implementation of the notified scheme have already been taken by
these States, then those steps should specifically be stated in the
affidavits with supporting documents. In the event of default, the
Secretary (Transport)/Commissioner, State Transport Authority shall
be present personally in the Court on the next date of hearing.
The above are the directions of the Court for immediate
compliance.  Affidavit on behalf of the States mentioned in this order
should be filed within four weeks from the date of the order.  We make14
it clear that now, in the event of default, this Court shall not only
initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 but may also impose costs, exemplary or otherwise,
recoverable from the defaulting officers personally.
The States falling under the second category, i.e. which have
initiated the steps but have not completed the same despite lapse of
considerable time, are hereby granted six weeks time to complete the
remaining process and also file affidavits before this Court showing
complete compliance.
All the applications to stand over for six weeks.
….………….............................CJI.
                  (S.H. Kapadia)
…….………….............................J.
   (K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan)
.J.............................………….…...
                           (Swatanter Kumar)
New Delhi
April 07, 201115
ITEM NO.IA               COURT NO.1             SECTION PIL
            S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A
                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I.A. NOS.10 AND 11 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.510 OF 2005
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA                           Petitioner(s)
                 VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                             Respondent(s)
With I.A. No.12 in I.A. No.10 in Writ Petition (C) No.510 of 2005
Date: 07/04/2011  This Matter was called on for Orders today.
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Charu Mathur,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.
Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.
Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.
      
M/s. Arputham,Aruna & Co.,Advs.
                      Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.
                  
Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv.
Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv.
Mr. Radha Shyam Jena,Adv.
Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Adv.
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv.
Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv.
Mr. Naveen Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Vikas Upadhyay,Adv.
Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee,Adv.
Mr. R. Sathish,Adv.
Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.
-/2...16
- 2 -
                      Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv.
Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R.,Adv.
Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy,Adv.
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv.
Mr. Arun K. Sinha,Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv.
Mr. T.V. George,Adv.
Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.
Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh,Adv.
Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei,Adv.
Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhuri,Adv.
M/s. Corporate Law Group,Advs.
Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia,Adv.
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,Adv.
Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv.
Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.
Mr. G. Prakash,Adv.
Mr. Atul Jha,Adv.
Mr. D.K. Sinha,Adv.
Ms. Jayshree Anand,AAG.,Pb.
Ms. Ekta Singh,Adv.
Mr. Kuldip Singh,Adv.
Mr. Naresh K. Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Manjit Singh,AAG., Haryana
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.
Mr. Edward Belho,Adv.
Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,Adv.
Ms. Vijaya,Adv.
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,Adv.
-/3...17
- 3 -
Mr. Sanjay Kharde,Adv.
Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv.
Mr. T. Harish Kumar,Adv.
Mr. P. Prasanth,Adv.
Mr. G.N. Reddy,Adv.
Mr. Ajay Pal,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar
pronounced the Order of the Bench comprising
Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.
Panicker Radhakrishnan and His Lordship.
“....we direct Secretary, Transport/Commissioner,
State Transport Authority of these States to be
present in this Court on the next date of hearing
and show cause why the Court should not initiate
proceedings against them under the provisions of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.  De hors the
issuance of the above show cause notice, these
States are also ordered to comply with other
directions contained in this Order.
In regard to other defaulting States,
before we invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of
this Court for initiation of contempt proceedings
against the concerned authorities of the respective
defaulting States, we consider it appropriate to
require the Secretary (Transport) and/or
Commissioner, State Transport Authority of each of
the States in the third category to file a personal
affidavit stating the reasons for not complying
with the orders of this Court.  If any steps of any
kind in furtherance to the judgments of this Court
afore-referred, satisfying requirements of amended
Rule 50 of the Rules for implementation of the
notified scheme have already been taken by these
States, then those steps should specifically be
stated in the affidavits with supporting documents.
In the event of default, the Secretary (Transport)/
Commissioner, State Transport Authority shall be
present personally in the Court on the next date of
hearing.
-/4...18
- 4 -
The above are the directions of the Court
for immediate compliance.  Affidavit on behalf of
the States mentioned in this order should be filed
within four weeks from the date of the order.  We
make it clear that now, in the event of default,
this Court shall not only initiate proceedings
under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 but may also impose costs, exemplary or
otherwise, recoverable from the defaulting officers
personally.
The States falling under the second
category, i.e. which have initiated the steps but
have not completed the same despite lapse of
considerable time, are hereby granted six weeks
time to complete the remaining process and also
file affidavits before this Court showing complete
compliance.
All the applications to stand over for six
weeks.”
    [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ]
     A.R.-cum-P.S.      Assistant Registrar
         [Signed reportable Order is placed on the file]