1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IA NOS. 10, 16, 17 AND 18

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.510 OF 2005

Maninderjit Singh Bitta              …  Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors.                    …  Respondents

O R D E R

1. This  order  is  in  continuation  of  the  orders  dated  30th  

August, 2011 and 13th October, 2011.  The directions contained  

in these orders shall be  mutatis mutandis applicable with the  

directions contained in the present order.

2. Despite  the  above  orders  of  this  Court,  majority  of  the  

States  have  not  fully  implemented  the  scheme  regulating  

issuance  and  fixation  of  High  Security  Registration  Plates  

(HSRP).   From the affidavits  filed on behalf  of  the  respective

2

States, it  is clear that they have not been vigilant enough to  

take appropriate steps for initiation and completion of the HSRP  

scheme and, in any case,  not  with required expeditiousness.  

On  25th November,  2011,  we  heard  the  learned  counsel  

appearing for different States and perused the affidavits placed  

on record.  However,  some of the States have not even been  

courteous enough to file affidavits of compliance and have orally  

prayed for extension of time.  In these circumstances, it  has  

become necessary for us to deal individually with the case of  

each State.

Andaman & Nicobar Islands (Union Territory)

3. As  per  the  affidavit,  Andaman & Nicobar  administration  

has already finalized and signed the agreement for awarding the  

contract to the successful bidder on 21st October, 2011 and the  

work was to be commenced within 30 days of signing of this  

contract which has not  commenced as yet.   They prayed for  

further extension of time to complete the implementation of the  

scheme.  As prayed, we grant period upto 31st March, 2012 for  

the  Union  Territory  to  complete  the  implementation  of  the  

scheme without fail.

3

Andhra Pradesh

4. It  is  the  case  of  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  that  it  

published the notice inviting the tenders on 8th October, 2011  

and the due date of the tender bids was 26th November, 2011.  

The  State  claims  that  it  has  prepared  a  comprehensive  

framework  to  implement  the  HSRP  scheme  and  authorized  

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation to roll out  

the end to end solution for the project.  It has decided to have a  

competitive  bidding  process  by  segregating  the  tender  into  

different  sections  i.e.  one  for  manufacturing,  another  for  

embossing, hot stamping and printing of HSRP and yet another  

to supply the same to the Corporation for installation.  Again,  

the process adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh is not only  

in violation of the directions contained in paragraphs 39 and 40  

of  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  Association  of   

Registration Plates v.  Union of India [(2005) 1 SCC 679], but is  

also  contrary  to  the  Notification dated 16th September,  2011  

which was issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 109 of the  

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and called the Motor Vehicles (New  

High Security Registration Plates) Order, 2001.  This Order does  

not permit the completion of the HSRP scheme in the manner  

sought to be adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The State

4

was to award the contract but the same has not so far been  

awarded.   In  the  circumstances  afore-noticed,  we  direct  the  

State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  to  issue  fresh  tender,  award  the  

contract  and  commence  the  implementation  of  the  scheme  

positively by 29th February, 2012.  It has assured this Court  

that now it would positively abide by the time schedule and do  

the needful.

Arunachal Pradesh  

5. Arunachal  Pradesh  had  invited  tenders  but  all  the  

tenderers  were  disqualified  resulting  in  the  State  being  

compelled  to  invite  fresh  tenders.   Re-tender  process  had  

already been started and the process was to be completed by  

18th November,  2011.   However,  it  prayed  for  three  weeks  

extension to award the contract and sign the agreement with  

the successful bidder.  It is further stated on behalf of the State  

that the scheme shall be fully implemented in the entire State  

by 31st March, 2012.  By way of a final opportunity, the time, as  

prayed for, is granted.

Assam

6. State of Assam has also started the process but is yet to  

complete the formalities and sign the deed of agreement.  An

5

inspection of the factories is to be conducted by 15th November,  

2011  and  the  tender  valuation  has  to  be  completed  by  1st  

January, 2012.   On behalf of the State, it is prayed that it be  

allowed time till January, 2012 to award the contract and sign  

the  agreement  with  the  successful  tenderer.    Further,  it  is  

submitted that for complete implementation of the scheme, time  

be extended till April, 2012.  Keeping in view the fact that the  

State has to put in some efforts and has certain limitations, in  

the interest of justice, we grant, by way of final opportunity, the  

extension of time, as prayed for.  The contract shall be awarded  

and  agreement  be  signed  by  31st January,  2012  and  the  

implementation of the scheme be completed by 30th April, 2012.

Bihar

7. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, it has  

been stated that the tenders were published on 21st September,  

2011.   Due  date  for  submission of  tenders  was 7th October,  

2011.  The financial bids were opened on 4th October, 2011, but  

because of  completion of  formalities,  delay has been caused.  

Resultantly, six weeks extension has been prayed for on behalf  

of the State of Bihar.

6

8. We may  notice  that  the  implementation  by  the  State  of  

Bihar is defective in law.  In fact, it violates the directions of this  

Court contained in the case of Association of Registration Plates  

(supra) as well as the other directions contained in the orders of  

this Court as afore-referred.

9. Learned senior  counsel,  Mr.  Ranjit  Kumar,  appearing  on  

behalf of the State has impressed upon the Court that in order  

to  achieve  greater  competitive  price  and not  to  depend on a  

single supplier, the State of Bihar, after following the procedure,  

has  short-listed  four  bidders.   The  State  proposes  to  award  

supply and fixation of HSRP to all  these four bidders for the  

same part of the State.  It is also his contention that paragraphs  

39 and 40 of this Court in the judgment in the case Association  

of Registration Plates (supra) do not contemplate selecting one  

manufacturer for supply of the HSRP.  We are not convinced by  

this submission.  Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the judgment of this  

Court clearly lay down that selecting one manufacturer through  

the process of open competition does not result in creation of  

any monopoly.  This Court had rejected such a contention and  

directed  the  maintenance  of  record  and  supervision  by  one  

manufacturer, which would be impossible if there were ‘multi-

7

manufacturers’  instead  of  one  as  suppliers.  The  actual  

operation  of  the  scheme  through  the  premises  of  Regional  

Transport Officers (RTOs) would get complicated and confused,  

if multi-manufacturers are involved.  Even in our order dated  

13th October, 2011, we had put any such controversy at rest  

and directed all the States to follow the directions contained in  

the above-mentioned paragraphs of the said earlier judgment of  

this Court.  We have no reason to take any different view and it  

will be in the interest of all concerned that the directions of this  

Court, as aforestated, are implemented by the State without any  

further delay.  It shall not only be advisable but appropriate to  

maintain a uniform practice  all  over the country.  For these  

reasons, we reject the contention raised on behalf of the State of  

Bihar.   The  State  need  not  issue  any  fresh tender  but  may  

award  the  contract  to  any  of  the  four  short-listed  bidders,  

whosoever is more beneficial to the State and is in a position to  

discharge  the  contractual  obligations  as  per  the  terms  and  

conditions of the tender and the judgments of this Court in this  

regard.  Let the needful be done by the State of Bihar by 31st  

December, 2011 and all the initial  steps should be taken for  

implementing the scheme of HSRP by 31st March, 2012.  Every  

possible  effort  should  be  made by the  State  to  complete  the

8

implementation of the scheme at the earliest.

Chandigarh

10. Chandigarh  administration  was  awaiting  the  approval  of  

the  Central  Government,  Ministry  of  Road  Transport  and  

Highways,  which has  been received  on 18th November,  2011  

and they have also received the permission from the Election  

Commissioner  for  going  ahead  with  the  awarding  of  the  

contract.  It is submitted that by 31st March, 2012, they would  

award  the  contract,  commence  the  implementation  of  the  

scheme for manufacture and fixation of HSRP and efforts would  

even be made to complete the implementation by that date.  In  

view  of  the  unequivocal  assurance  given  in  this  behalf,  

Chandigarh  Administration,  by  way  of  last  opportunity,  is  

granted time upto 31st March, 2012.  

Chhattisgarh

11. State of Chhattisgarh has invited tenders, opened  

the final bids on 27th September, 2011 and it is stated by the  

State that it will award the contract by 31st January, 2012 and  

implement the scheme by 30th April, 2012.  In view of the steps  

taken and prayer for extension of time, we grant time as prayed

9

for.   

Delhi

12. The tenders which were invited for awarding the work of  

manufacture and fixation of HSRP were opened on 23rd June,  

2011.  Financial bids were opened on 28th June, 2011 and the  

successful bidder has been finalized.  According to the stand  

taken by the Delhi Government, the rate schedule has also been  

finalized  by  the  Chief  Secretary.   However,  it  remains  to  be  

finally  accepted  by  the  Delhi  Integrated  Multimodal  Transit  

System (DIMTS) which has been constituted by the Government  

as a special Purpose Vehicle for overseeing transport in Delhi.  

The Delhi  Government still  has not implemented the scheme  

and, in fact, has not even awarded the contract so far.  It has  

been stated that firstly the terms and conditions of the tender  

were challenged by one M/s. Tonnejes Eastern by filing a writ  

petition before  the Delhi  High Court wherein the High Court  

had refused the prayer for interim stay.  This order of the High  

Court  dated  10th June,  2011  was  challenged  before  the  

Supreme Court. The special leave petition against the non-grant  

of the interim order was dismissed by this Court on 23rd June,  

2011.  However, special leave petition filed against the order of  

dismissal of the writ petition before the High Court vide order

10

dated 26th August, 2011 is pending before this Court, in which  

no interim order has been passed.   

13. Be that as it may, to some extent, the procedure adopted by  

the Delhi Government is not in conformity with the judgments  

of  this  Court.   From the  documents  now  filed  on  record,  it  

appears that DIMTS has reserved onto itself the power to select  

more than one vendor for the project.  It is also stipulated in the  

draft agreement that the supplier of the plate shall notify the  

purchaser  in  writing  of  all  sub-contracts  awarded under  the  

contract.  We make it clear that neither Rule 50 of the Motor  

Vehicles  Rules,  1989  (for  short,  the  ‘Rules’),  Motor  Vehicles  

(New High  Security  Registration  Plates)  Order,  2011 nor  the  

judgments of this Court permit sub-contracts to be awarded by  

the contractor to whom the award for manufacture and fixation  

of HSRP is awarded.  Furthermore, in their affidavit dated 26 th  

November,  2011  it  has  been  stated  that  the  DIMTS  is  also  

taking  other  steps  and  it  has  divided  the  implementation  

process into two parts: - Firstly, procurement of blank HSRP  

confirming to Rule 50 of the Rules and personalization of plates  

by embossing, hot stamping of number plates, quality checking,  

printing  of  third  number  plate,  set  matching,  dispatch,  

transportation and installation of HSRP.    Secondly, it is not

11

permissible to bifurcate the process under different heads or in  

parts.  It is a mandatory requirement that one person should  

exclusively be responsible for the entire process in the interest  

of  security.   Thus,  we make it  clear  that  DIMTS,  when it  is  

getting  the  HSRP  manufactured  from  the  contractor,  such  

manufacture  should  be  firstly  from  a  single  contractor  and  

secondly it should, without fail, be under the direct supervision  

and control of DIMTS.  They should not let the sub-contractors  

or  other  parties  to  have  control  over  the  manufacturing  

processing and fixation of  HSRP in any manner,  whatsoever.  

They should ensure that one single person is responsible for  

manufacturing, affixation of seals, imprinting of numbers and  

affixation of HSRP on the vehicles in the NCT of Delhi.   The  

Government has prayed for extension of time.  We extend the  

period  for  implementation  of  the  scheme  till  31st December,  

2011, by which date, all steps, complete in all respects, should  

be taken by the Delhi Government.

Gujarat

14. The  State  of  Gujarat  had  issued  the  tender  notice  and  

considered even the persons not possessed of ‘TYPE APPROVAL  

CERTIFICATE’.   However,  they  have  added  a  condition  that  

upon awarding of the contract and before manufacturing HSRP,

12

the  TYPE  APPROVAL  CERTIFICATE  duly  signed  by  the  

competent authority should be submitted, at most within three  

months.  Due date for submission of tender was 20th October,  

2011.  Five bids had been received.  Technical bids had been  

opened.   Financial  bids are  to  be  opened on 28th November,  

2011 and the agreement would be signed by 15th April, 2012.  

We do not contribute to the method that has been adopted by  

the State of Gujarat for implementation of the scheme.  They  

ought to have acted in consonance with the directions of this  

Court.  Be that as it may, since the conditions contained in the  

directions of this Court have not been waived and only a period  

has  been  prescribed  to  submit  the  ‘TYPE  APPROVAL  

CERTIFICATE’, we do not consider it appropriate to direct the  

State to hold the entire tender process afresh.  But we make it  

clear  that  the  agreement  should  be  signed  and  the  

implementation of scheme should positively commence by 30th  

April, 2012.  We also make it clear that no further time would  

be granted to the State of Gujarat in this behalf.

Haryana

15. State  of  Haryana,  in  furtherance  to  the  order  dated 13th  

October, 2011 passed by this Court in a contempt petition has  

deposited Rs.50,000/- as costs and Rs.2,000/- as fine imposed

13

on each of the officers.  The State has not filed any affidavit and  

for  the  same,  no  appropriate  reason  is  stated  on  its  behalf.  

However, it is stated by the counsel for the State that it has  

invited the tenders and even opened the financial bids on 14th  

September, 2011.  Only contract has to be awarded and scheme  

is to be implemented.  For this, it is prayed that they would  

complete  all  the  formalities  and  sign  the  contract  by  31st  

December, 2011 and implement the scheme in its entirety by  

the end of April, 2012.  We accept the prayer of the State of  

Haryana and, by way of last opportunity, permit them time for  

finalization  of  contract  till  31st December,  2011  and  for  

implementation of  the scheme in its  entirety  upto 30th April,  

2012.

Himachal Pradesh

16. The State of Himachal Pradesh has completed the process  

of  awarding the contract for  manufacture and fixation of  the  

HSRP. They claimed that all new vehicles have been affixed with  

the HSRP as on 15th November, 2011 and, for old vehicles, they  

prayed for  grant  of  further  time.   The prayer  made on their  

behalf  to  extend the  time till  December,  2013 is  unjust  and  

without any rational basis. However, in the interest of justice,  

we grant time for the complete implementation of the scheme

14

till 15th June, 2012.

Jammu & Kashmir

17. State  of  Jammu  &  Kashmir  has  already  selected  the  

successful bidder and the letter of intent is to be issued to the  

party. The same shall be issued within three weeks from the  

date of  passing of  this order and the entire scheme shall  be  

implemented  by  31st March,  2012 in  the  State  of  Jammu &  

Kashmir.  Since the State has taken some steps, we find that  

the request for extension of time is reasonable and, by way of  

last opportunity, the time prayed for is granted.

Jharkhand

18. The State of Jharkhand has finalized the tenders on 21st  

October, 2011 but the agreement has not yet been signed and  

formalities in that regard remain to be completed.  According to  

the  counsel  appearing  for  the  State,  it  shall  complete  the  

remaining formalities at the earliest and, in fact, complete the  

implementation of the scheme by 30th April, 2012.  By way of  

last opportunity, the prayer is allowed.

Kerala

19. In the affidavit filed and from the stand taken before this  

Court on behalf of  the State of  Kerala, it  is pointed out that  

tender notice was published but validity of  the earlier tender

15

has expired on 29th June, 2011.  There is an order of status quo  

passed by the Supreme Court which is in force and, therefore,  

the  State  is  not  in  a  position  to  take  appropriate  steps  for  

implementing the scheme.  At the request of the State of Kerala,  

we grant extension of time and adjourn the matter in regard to  

State of Kerala to be taken up immediately after 31st December,  

2011.  In the meanwhile, we also grant liberty to the parties in  

SLP (C)  No.13630-31 of  2011 to  make  a  mention before  the  

concerned Bench at the earliest.

Lakshdweep (U.T.)

20. Lakshdweep had published e-tender on 27th August, 2011.  

But  the  tender  had  to  be  cancelled  as  only  one  bidder  had  

responded  to  the  bid.   Re-tender  is  stated  to  have  been  

published on 10th October, 2011 and due date for receipt of the  

bids was 9th November, 2011.  They prayed for extension of time  

to award the tender.  We make it clear that the Union Territory  

of Lakshdweep shall proceed with finalization of the re-tender in  

accordance  with  the  judgments  of  this  Court  without  any  

further delay and finalize the entire process by 30th January,  

2012.   They  shall  also  ensure  that  implementation  of  the  

scheme is commenced by 30th April, 2012 without fail.

16

Madhya Pradesh

21. The State of Madhya Pradesh has prayed for extension of  

four  months  to  award  the  contract  and  commence  

implementation of the scheme.  The reason given for the delay  

is  that  the  reply  to  queries  raised  by  potential  bidders  was  

replied with delay and the last dates for the same had to be  

rescheduled.   This  reason is  least  convincing.   However,  the  

schedule of dates has already been declared and published and  

the parties have acted thereupon.  Thus, it is clear that by 31st  

January,  2012,  the  contract  should  be  awarded  and  

immediately thereafter, the commencement of  implementation  

of  the  scheme  should  begin.  Endeavour  should  be  made  to  

complete the implementation at the earliest and, in any case,  

not later than 30th April, 2012.

Manipur

22. The State of Manipur, as per its affidavit, has completed the  

process.  However, the agreement has not been signed and the  

State has not commenced implementation of the scheme as yet.  

At the request of the State, we grant time for commencement of  

the implementation of the scheme for manufacture and fixation  

of  HSRP  by  31st December,  2011.   Let  the  affidavit  of  full  

compliance be filed thereafter.  

17

Mizoram

23. The bid of M/s. Shimit Utsch India Ltd. is stated to have  

been authorized by the Council of Ministers.  However, the firm  

has quoted higher rates than it had quoted to the State of West  

Bengal.   The Government of  Mizoram is negotiating with the  

successful  tenderer  and  the  negotiations  are  likely  to  be  

completed within a short period.  Let a final decision be taken  

by the concerned authorities positively by 31st December, 2011.  

Implementation of the scheme should commence immediately  

thereafter and implementation be completed, as prayed for, by  

31st March, 2012, with no further extension of time.  

Nagaland

24. The State of Nagaland has implemented the scheme vide its  

Notification dated 6th July, 2011 for all new vehicles, but for old  

vehicles,  they  have  prayed  for  two  years’  further  time  to  

implement the scheme.  We see no reason, once the contract  

has been awarded and the State has implemented the scheme  

for new vehicles, why the State should require such a long time  

for catering to the old vehicles in the State.  Again, by way of  

last opportunity, we grant time to the State of Nagaland upto  

15th June, 2012 to implement the scheme in the entire State for  

all vehicles and to submit affidavit of compliance.

18

Orissa

25. Process  of  inviting  tenders  had  been  completed and  

decision to get the documents of the bidders audited was taken  

on 24th October, 2011.  They submit that final decision to award  

the contract shall positively be taken by 31st January, 2012 and  

scheme shall be implemented in its entirety by 30th April, 2012.  

The time, as prayed for, is granted with a clear direction that no  

extension would be granted.

Punjab

26. The  State  of  Punjab  has  invited  the  bids,  financial  

evaluation  has  been  done  and  bids  were  opened  on  18th  

October,  2011.   No  affidavit  has  been  filed  but  it  has  been  

stated  that  the  process  of  awarding  of  the  contract  shall  be  

concluded  by  15th January,  2012  and  the  scheme  shall  be  

implemented in the entire State by 30th April, 2012.  Time, as  

prayed for, is granted by way of last and final opportunity.

Puducherry/Pondicherry

27. Union Territory of Pondicherry has filed an affidavit stating  

that letter of acceptance of tender has been issued on 16 th May,  

2011 but the tender had to be cancelled on 19th October, 2011  

because  of  failure  on  the  part  of  the  successful  tenderer  to  

submit the security deposit as per the terms and conditions of

19

the  tender.   It  is  also  stated  that  the  tenderer  had  claimed  

higher rates than the rates offered by him in the State of West  

Bengal and the Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands  

but certain negotiations are going on and the State may even  

invite fresh tenders.  In either event, the State would complete  

the  entire  process  of  commencing  the  implementation of  the  

scheme within four months.  In other words, they would invite  

fresh  tenders,  finalise  the  same,  enter  into  contract  and  

commence  the  manufacture  and  fixation  of  HSRP  on  the  

vehicles in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The time of four  

months,  as  prayed for,  is  granted.   Let  the  needful  be  done  

positively by 31st March, 2012.  

Sikkim

28. As per  the  affidavit  filed,  the  State  of  Sikkim has taken  

steps  and  the  entire  implementation  of  the  scheme  shall  be  

completed by 31st March,  2012.  The time,  as prayed for,  is  

granted with a clear direction that no further extension would  

be granted.

Tamil Nadu

29. Affidavit on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu has been filed  

stating that last date for respective tenders was 15th November,  

2011.  In  the  meanwhile,  the  Model  Code  of  Conduct  for

20

elections  came into  force  w.e.f.  21st September,  2011 to  22nd  

October, 2011.  Thereafter, the matter would be processed and  

the State would finalize awarding of the contract and commence  

implementation of the scheme for fixation of HSRP by the end of  

February 2012.  In view of the definite statement on behalf of  

the State and by way of last opportunity, the time is granted  

upto 29th February, 2012.

Tripura

30. The  State  of  Tripura  has  filed  no  affidavit.   However,  a  

stand was taken before the Court on its behalf that there was a  

stay for awarding the contract which has since been vacated  

and the tender process would be completed expeditiously.  As  

prayed, we grant three months time to the State to award the  

contract  as  well  as  to  commence  the  implementation  of  the  

scheme.  Needful be done by 29th February, 2012, by way of last  

opportunity and no further time would be granted.

Uttar Pradesh

31. As per  the  affidavit  filed  on behalf  of  the  State  of  Uttar  

Pradesh,  the  notice  for  inviting  tenders  had been published.  

Last date for submission of tenders was 5th July, 2011.  Seven  

bids were received, though no contract has so far been awarded

21

and no agreement has been signed as yet.  Request had been  

made on behalf of the State for extension of time.  We may also  

notice that according to the State, a writ petition had been filed  

in  the  High  Court  of  Allahabad  to  quash  the  tender  for  

manufacture of these registration plates.  There is no interim  

stay granted by the High Court.  We make it clear that the State  

of Uttar Pradesh should ensure manufacture and affixation of  

HSRP  through  a  single  process  and  person in  terms  of  the  

judgment of this Court.  The Evaluation Committee should meet  

and take a final decision.  The contract should be awarded and  

the  implementation  of  the  scheme  should  commence  within  

three months from the date of passing of this order as prayed  

for.  By way of last opportunity, the period is extended upto 29 th  

February, 2012.

Uttarakhand

32. As  per  the  affidavit  filed  on  behalf  of  the  State  of  

Uttarakhand,  it  had  invited  the  tenders  and  evaluated  the  

technical bids on 8th November, 2011.  The financial bids were  

to be considered on 11th November, 2011.  The Government has  

approved the issuance of the letter of acceptance but it is not  

clear from the affidavit whether the awarding of the contract is  

actually  complete  or  not  and  whether  agreement  has  been

22

signed  or  not.   Let  all  formalities  in  regard  to  awarding  of  

contract be completed by 31st December, 2011 and the scheme  

should be fully implemented by 30th April,  2012.  It is made  

clear  that  no  further  extension  would  be  granted  for  this  

purpose.

West Bengal

33. This State has filed an affidavit wherein it is submitted that  

in two RTOs of the State, there has been partial implementation  

of the scheme.  We are unable to see any justification in the  

stand of the State Government for partial implementation of the  

scheme  but,  in  the  interest  of  justice  and  by  way  of  last  

opportunity, we grant the State time upto 31st January, 2011 to  

implement the scheme in the rest of  the State.  This time is  

being given as prayed for by the learned counsel appearing for  

the State.  We make it clear that no further extension will be  

granted in this regard.

34. The states of Karnataka, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Goa  

and Union Territories of  Daman & Diu and Dadara & Nagar  

Haveli have not filed affidavits in furtherance to the orders of  

this Court dated 13th October, 2011.  We may also notice that  

both the Union Territories above-referred have not even issued  

tenders, much less taken any further steps to comply with the

23

directions of this Court.  Non-filing of affidavits itself is a matter  

of concern for this Court.  It has caused serious difficulties for  

this Court in dealing with this case meaningfully and effectively.  

From the affidavits on record which were filed by these States  

and Union Territories, it appears that the litigation is pending  

in regard to the tender process itself in the Courts for the States  

of  Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Goa and Karnataka and for non-

filing of affidavits, these States/Union Territories have already  

violated the orders of the Court.  It is not clear from the record  

as to what is the stage of these proceedings and whether any  

order of stay/injunction has been passed by the Courts, as a  

consequence  of  which,  it  is  not  possible  for  the  respective  

State/Union  Territory  to  pursue  the  matter  any  further  and  

finalize  the  awarding  of  contracts  in  accordance  with  the  

directions of this Court.   It was expected of all these States and  

Union Territories to file proper affidavits.  We grant time upto  

31st December, 2011 to take appropriate steps to get the interim  

orders  vacated,  if  there  are  any,  and  then  to  file  affidavit  

positively by the date aforestated.   

35. The Union Territories of Daman & Diu and Dadara & Nagar  

Haveli should explain as to why no steps at all have been taken  

by them in furtherance to various orders of this Court.

24

36. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties  

and  perused  the  documents  on  record,  we  consider  it  

imperative to pass certain general directions in addition to the  

above specific directions passed by us in regard to every State  

or Union Territory, as the case may be.  Thus, we also pass the  

following general directions :

1. Affidavits of compliance and undertakings to comply with  

the  directions  of  the  Court,  as  contained  in  different  

orders of this Court, should be filed within four weeks  

from  25th November,  2011.   The  affidavits-cum-

undertakings shall be filed by the Secretary (Transport)  

and  the  Commissioner  (Transport)  of  respective  States  

and Union Territories.   The time schedule  specified in  

this order shall be strictly adhered to.  We make it clear  

that no further time shall  be granted by the Court for  

this purpose.

2. In the event of default and non-compliance of any of the  

directions contained in this order by any authority, this  

Court would be compelled to initiate proceedings against  

such officer/officers in accordance with the provisions of  

the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, without any further  

notice to them.

25

3. This matter shall  be listed before the Registrar (Judl.)  of  

this  Court  on 5th January,  2012.   The  Registrar  shall  

verify and submit a report to this Court as to which of  

the  State/Union  Territory  and  their  respective  officers  

have not complied with the directions of  this Court as  

contained in this order.  The report of the Registrar shall  

be submitted and the matter be placed before the Court  

on 20th January, 2012.   

4. We are of the considered view that various matters pending  

before this Court, wherein challenge has been raised to  

the tender process commenced and/or finalized by the  

respective States/Union Territories for implementation of  

the HSRP scheme, should be listed before one and the  

same Court.  Then alone, the effective implementation of  

the directions of the Court is possible.  Thus, the matter  

should be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice on the  

administrative side for appropriate orders at the earliest.

5. On  behalf  of  the  petitioner  and  some  of  the  States,  a  

question has been raised before us that contractors have  

responded to the notices for tender in consortium.  This  

is being done primarily for the purpose of satisfying the  

condition of specialized experience for manufacture and

26

affixation of HSRP.  However, after award of the contract,  

the  partner  possessing  expertise  (Type  Approval  

Certificate, approval etc.) in the consortium may walk out  

from  the  performance  of  the  contract.   In  this  

circumstance, the very purpose would stand frustrated.  

We find merit in this submission but would refrain from  

issuing any direction in that behalf, at this stage.  It will  

be  for  the  concerned  State/Union  Territory  to  take  

appropriate decision with reference to the facts of a given  

case and in accordance with law.  Prima facie, it appears  

to us that it would be in the interest of all concerned that  

all the members of the consortium including the member  

possessing  the  expertise  should  continue  as  such  till  

performance of the contract.

6. In  the  interest  of  justice  and  to  ensure  proper  

implementation of the judgments and directions of this  

Court,  as contained in its  various orders,  in regard to  

manufacturing  and  affixation  of   the  HSRP,  it  is  

imperative for this Court to direct that it will be in the  

fitness of things and even the judicial proprietary would  

demand  that  no  High  Court  should  pass  any  interim  

orders cancelling or staying the tender process in relation

27

to implementation of the scheme.  While so directing, we  

grant liberty to the parties to make a mention before this  

Court  after  they have instituted their  petitions,  if  any,  

before  the  High  Court  and  interim  orders  have  been  

declined in furtherance to the observations aforemade.

37. With the above directions and at the cost of repetition, we  

direct all the authorities in the State/Union Territory hierarchy  

to  ensure that  these  directions  should  be  complied  without  

default and delay.

38. Accordingly, all IAs stand disposed of.  This order shall also  

be  treated  as  an  order  in  the  main  petition  and  the  main  

petition alone shall be listed for hearing on the next date.

….………….................CJI.                     (S.H. Kapadia)

…….…………................J.                 (A.K. Patnaik)

...….…………................J.          (Swatanter Kumar) New Delhi; December 08, 2011