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  28th 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 Government

2

issued an order  dated 22nd 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 16th 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  26th 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  30th  

November, 2004 reported in (2005) 1 SCC 679.  While dismissing the  

writ  petition  and  the  connected  matters,  the  Bench  rejected  the

3

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 8th 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 5th 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 1st 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 13th 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 on

6

11th 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  11th  

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 Date

7

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 31st 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 were  opened.  Subsequently  the  tender  has  been cancelled.

21 Manipur The  State  Government  had  floated  the

8

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 29th September  

2008  notifying  11th 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 be  

taken.

9

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,  

despite judgments and specific orders of this Court right from the year

10

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 States  

which have not  even initiated any process for  compliance of  their

11

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  persistent  

disobedience,  has  been  viewed  very  seriously  by  the  concerned

12

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  

against  them under  the provisions of  the  Contempt  of  Courts  Act,

13

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.

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

14

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, 2011