IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IA NOS.10 – 11 OF 2010

IN  

IA No.10 OF 2010

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.510 OF 2005

Maninderjit Singh Bitta      …  Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors.            … Respondents

AND  

IA NOS. 12 OF 2010

IN

IA No.10 OF 2010

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.510 OF 2005

O R D E R

1. We  had  passed  a  detailed  order  on  7th April,  2011  

referring  to  the  judgments  and directions  of  this  Court  in  the  

cases of Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India [(2005)  

1 SCC 679] and Maninderjit Singh Bitta  v.  Union of India [(2008)  

7 SCC 328].  As is evident, the main judgment of this Court in the

aforementioned  case  of  Association  of  Plates  (supra)  was  

pronounced on 30th November, 2004 and further directions were  

issued on 8th May, 2008 in case of Maninderjit Singh Bitta (supra)  

to  secure  implementation of  various statutory  requirements  as  

per the earlier judgment of this Court.  The present order has to  

be read in continuation of our order dated 7th April, 2011 and the  

judgments referred supra.

2. Sufficient  time  has  elapsed  but  default  on the  part  of  

some States in complying with the directions of this Court still  

persists.  In fact, seven years have elapsed but it appears to us  

that some States have not even taken initial steps to implement  

the scheme of High Security Registration Plates (for short, ‘HSRP’)  

in their respective States.  We regretfully note that the situation  

in the present case is the converse of compliance.  There is no  

State in the entire country which has successfully, in accordance  

with the statutory provisions and scheme, as approved by this  

Court,  implemented the  scheme in its  entirety.   As  far  as the  

financial limitations faced by different States are concerned, the  

matter  was  examined  by  this  Court  and  their  prayer  for  

exemption  was  declined.   However,  they  were  permitted  to  

complete the implementation of the scheme in phases.  Of course,  

even such request was subsequently withdrawn.  

3. The other matter with regard to permitting the HSRP to  

be fixed by private vendors, even if approved by the Government,  

was  considered  and  for  appropriate  reasons,  as  stated  in  

paragraphs  40  and  46  to  48  in  the  case  of  Association  of  

Registration Plates  (supra),  rejected by this Court.  It  was held  

that “the interpretation sought to be placed by the petitioner on  

the said paragraphs of the Rule would result in frustrating the  

high security aspect and the object of the scheme of affixation of  

High  Security  Registration  Plates  on  vehicles.”   In  terms  of  

paragraph 4 of clause 9 of the Motor Vehicle (New High Security  

Registration Plates) Order, 2001 “no high security plate shall be  

affixed outside the premises of the Registering Authority”.

4. Another  important  facet  of  these  cases  is  that  in  the  

process of selection, the States were expected to invite tenders  

and were even given liberty to consult experts prior to finalizing  

such tenders.  The registration plates were then to be affixed by  

the  selected  tenderers  at  the  Regional  Transport  Office  of  a  

District or State.  The object of the ordinance and the judgment of  

this Court was to preserve public security and safety by ensuring  

that every vehicle in the State is fixed with HSRP and no part of  

the country remains where the scheme is not implemented.

5. On the basis of the implementation of the scheme, the  

States can be classified into four categories.  In the first category  

there are four States/Union Territories : Nagaland, West Bengal,  

Manipur and Puducherry, where the tender process was followed,  

the  successful  tenderer  has  been  awarded  the  contract  for  

supplying security registration plates and the predicted date of  

enforcement of the scheme in the State has been fixed.  But, no  

affidavit has been filed on behalf of these States confirming that  

the scheme has been successfully completed in all the districts of  

the  respective  States  and  also  that  the  States  would  ensure  

complete  and comprehensive  implementation of  the  scheme in  

future  as  well.   Let  such  affidavits  be  filed  by  the  Secretary,  

Transport  of  the  respective  States  within  four  weeks  from the  

date of the passing of this order.

6. Then there is  a second category of  U.T./States i.e.  the  

U.T. of Chandigarh and the States of Jharkhand and Bihar which  

have not followed the procedure for selection and have approved  

certain  vendors  with  Type  Approval  Certificate  (TAC)  from the  

Central Government, who would be permitted to affix the HSRP at  

their  own premises  or  at  the  office  of  the  RTO.   As  we  have  

already indicated, this is not in compliance with the directions of  

the Court, the scheme and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988.  If these States are permitted to adopt their own procedure,  

then  it  is  bound  to  defeat  the  very  purpose  of  security  and  

uniform affixation  of  HSRP all  over  the  country.   Hence,  this  

cannot  be  permitted  as  it  would  defeat  the  entire  exercise  

undertaken by this Court over number of years.  The aforesaid  

States are, therefore, directed to:

a. Immediately invite tenders;

b. Finalize the entire tender process within six weeks from  

today;

c. File  compliance  report  in  this  Court,  in  the  form  of  

affidavit stating that tenders have been finalized and the  

work  of  affixation  of  security  registration  plates  has  

begun in every district or part thereof, within two weeks  

thereafter.

7. The  third  category  include  the  defaulting  States  of  

Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Tamil  

Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana.  These States again can  

further  be  divided  into  two  sub-categories.   In  the  first  sub-

category, there are States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and  

Madhya  Pradesh  which  have  informed  this  Court,  by  filing  of  

affidavits that they have fixed the dates for publication of tenders.  

They have estimated the period of publication of tender being the  

months of August and September of this year.  These States have  

surprisingly taken not only months but years to even fix a date

for publication of tender.  Despite our order dated 7th April, 2011,  

even the tenders have not been published as yet, though we had  

granted six weeks time for completing the process.  Besides fixing  

the time limits for filing of the affidavits, we had also indicated  

that this Court would be compelled to take action against default  

the defaulting States under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 as  

well as impose exemplary costs personally recoverable from the  

erring  officers.   However,  before  we  take  both  these  actions  

against  the above category of  defaulting  States,  we would give  

them  another  opportunity  to  complete  the  entire  process  of  

publication and issue tender within six  weeks from today and  

commence the implementation of the scheme for fixation of HSRP  

in their States immediately thereafter.  The affidavits to that effect  

should be filed within eight weeks from today.

8. Now, we come to the second sub-category of defaulting  

States,  i.e.  the  States  of  Haryana,  Arunachal  Pradesh  and  

Jammu and Kashmir.  These are the States which have taken no  

action at  all  or  have  merely  initiated  the  process  without  any  

effective result.  They have not filed any affidavit to show why the  

directions  of  the  Court  have  not  been  complied  with,  or,  if  

complied  with,  to  what  extent  the  said  compliance  has  been  

successful and finally whether they have followed the due process

as directed to be followed by the Courts, in the implementation of  

the scheme.  All these States have done nothing except praying  

for extension of time before this Court.  The State of Haryana,  

firstly, took no steps for years and thereafter, on 5th May, 2011,  

filed  an  affidavit  to  the  effect  that  they  have  constituted  a  

Committee of Secretaries to approve the draft of the tender notice  

and  approval  was  to  be  granted  on  6th May,  2011.   There  is  

nothing  on  record  to  show  whether  such  approval  has  been  

granted  or  not  and what  steps  have  been  taken  by  the  State  

thereafter to comply with the directions of this Court.   All  the  

other States in this category have prayed for extension of time  

before this Court and some States have not even done so.  Vide  

order dated 7th April, 2011, we had put at notice, not only these  

States but all concerned authorities in each State throughout the  

country, requiring them to show compliance to the orders of this  

Court.  The  conduct  of  these  States  clearly  reflects  their  

callousness  and lack of  will  to  obey  the  orders  of  this  Court.  

Their  attitude  is  one  of  disobedience  rather  than  compliance.  

Thus,  in  our  considered  view,  these  are  the  defaulting  states  

which  have,  with  impunity,  flouted  the  orders  of  this  Court,  

despite warnings being issued, including the directions contained  

in order dated 7th April, 2011.

9. From  the  record  before  us,  it  is  clear  that  there  is

apparent  and intentional  default  on the  part  of  the  concerned  

officers of these defaulting States.  Consequently, we issue notice  

to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts  

Act,  1971  be  not  initiated,  if  found  guilty,  why  they  be  not  

punished  in  accordance  with  law  and  why  exemplary  costs,  

personally  recoverable  from the  erring  officers/officials,  be  not  

imposed.  Notice shall be issued to:

a. Secretary (Transport) of the defaulting States. b. Commissioner,  State  Transport  Authority  of  the  

respective States.

10. Now, we will come to the last category of States, i.e., the  

ones that have taken certain effective steps to secure compliance  

with the  statutory  provisions  and the  scheme.   These  are  the  

States  which  have  invited  tenders  in  accordance  with  the  

selection process that has been approved by this Court.  Some of  

these States have even opened the tender bids however, awarding  

of tender has not been finalized.  The States of Assam, Punjab,  

Chhattisgarh,  Delhi,  Gujarat,  Tripura,  Uttar  Pradesh,  

Uttarakhand  and  Kerala  and  the  Union  Territories  of  

Lakshadweep and Andaman & Nicobar, have prayed for further  

extension of time to complete the process, which is already at an  

advanced stage.  We may notice here that the State of Kerala had  

invited tenders earlier and it had received a single tender within

the time provided.  The matter remained pending at that stage for  

a considerable time and thereafter, the State of Kerala filed I.A.  

No.  13  of  2011  praying  for  certain  directions,  including  the  

permission to re-open applications for fresh tenders which was  

dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 12th August, 2011.  

We are  reluctant  to  agree  to  further  extension of  time for  the  

reason that all these States/U.Ts had enough time to comply with  

the  requirements  and  some  of  these  States/U.Ts  were  even  

cautioned  vide  our  previous  order.  Some  of  these  States/U.Ts  

have even given reasons for their non-compliance, including that  

they had invited tenders earlier but had to cancel the same for  

one reason or the other.  Keeping in view the fact that all these  

States  have  at  least  taken  some  steps  to  finalize  the  proper  

implementation of the scheme, we consider it appropriate, though  

as mentioned above, with reluctance, to grant further extension  

of eight weeks time to these States/U.Ts to complete the entire  

process and implement the scheme in its entirety, in accordance  

with law.  Thus, while granting them such extension, to complete  

the entire process for implementation of the scheme, we direct  

that vehicles in all the districts of the respective States/U.Ts shall  

install the HSRP within eight weeks from today without exception  

and default.   An affidavit of  compliance in that regard be filed  

immediately thereafter.

11. List the matter for directions, qua the States to whom we  

have issued show cause notice for initiation of proceedings under  

the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and imposition of exemplary  

costs as aforestated, after two weeks while the matters in relation  

to all the other States shall be listed immediately on the expiry of  

eight weeks from today.

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

…….…………................J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

...….…………................J.                (Swatanter Kumar)

New Delhi August 30, 2011