REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.510 OF 2005

Maninderjit Singh Bitta    … Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors.    … Respondents

WITH

PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NOS. 24497,  13485, 13630-13631 of 2011 AND 1894-1897 OF 2012

AND

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 162 OF 2010

J U D G M E N T

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. The  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  

1

sought to introduce a new scheme regulating issuance and fixation  

-

of  High  Security  Number  Plates.   In  terms of  sub-section  (3)  of  

Section 109 of  the Act,  the Central  Government issued an order  

dated  22nd August,  2001  which  dealt  with  various  facets  of  

manufacture, supply and fixation of new High Security Registration  

Plates (hereinafter, ‘HSRP’).  The Central Government also issued a  

notification dated 16th October, 2001 for further implementation of  

the said order and the HSRP scheme. Various States had invited  

tenders in order to implement this scheme.

2. 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 the 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  

2

the case of Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India [(2004)  

5  SCC  364],  as  there  was  a  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  Association of Registration  

Plates v. Union of India [(2005) 1 SCC 679].  While dismissing the  

writ  petition  and the  connected  matters,  this  Court  rejected  the  

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.   

3. The matter  did not rest  there.   Persistent  default  and non-

compliance  by  the  different  States  with  regard  to  the  statutory  

Rules, implementation of the schemes as well as the orders passed  

by this Court  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 vide its judgment  

dated 8th May,  2008 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 said judgment:

3

“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 judgment of this Court, most of the States  

have failed to implement the scheme and the directions contained  

in  the  judgments  of  this  Court.   The  matter  remained  pending  

before this Court for a considerable time and various orders passed  

by  this  Court  directing  implementation  of  the  scheme  were  not  

complied  with.   On 7th April,  2011,  by a detailed order,  we  had  

4

taken  note  of  the  intervening  events  and  the  fact  that  a  large  

number of States had not even implemented the scheme and the  

directions  contained  in  the  judgments  of  this  Court.   Before  --

invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for initiation of  

contempt  proceedings  against  the  concerned  authorities  of  the  

respective defaulting States, this Court considered it necessary to  

only require the presence of officers in Court and provided them  

with  another  opportunity  to  ensure  compliance  of  the  directions  

issued  by  this  Court.   Despite  assurance  of  an  effective  

implementation of the Court’s orders, nothing substantial was done  

within the time of six weeks, granted by this Court vide its Order  

dated 7th April, 2011.  Certain Interim Applications (I.A.s) were filed  

by  some  of  the  States  for  extension  of  time  and  in  view  of  the  

assurance given in court, this Court had also dispensed with the  

personal  appearance  of  the  senior  officers  of  those  State  

Governments. However, with some regret, we noticed that still a few  

states had not complied with the directions of this Court and the  

casual attitude of the State Government of these States was obvious  

from their very conduct, inside and outside the Court.  This attitude  

compelled us to pass a very detailed Order on 30th August, 2011,  

5

classifying the States into different categories.   The first category of  

the  States  had  taken  steps  and  even  awarded  the  contract  for  

supplying HSRP.  The second category was of the States/U.T.s  --

which had not followed the correct procedure for selection and had  

approved all private vendors, with ‘Type Approval Certificate’ (TAC)  

from  the  Central  Government,  to  affix  the  ‘HSRP’  at  their  own  

premises or at the Office of the RTO.  The third category was of the  

defaulting  States  who had  filed  affidavits,  assuring  the  Court  of  

taking steps and finalising the tender allotment within the specified  

dates. On the basis of the affidavits filed by them, they were granted  

further time and were required to file affidavits of compliance.  The  

last category was of the States which had been persisting with the  

default and had not taken any effective steps to comply with the  

directions of this Court.  Thus, vide Order dated 30th August 2011  

we had passed the following directions in relation to this category :  

“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  

6

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.”

5. Despite the above orders, a number of States failed to comply  

with the Court’s directions as well as implement the provisions of  

the Act.   In these circumstances, the Court was satisfied that there  

being  willful  violation  of  the  orders  of  the  Court,  the  default  

tantamount to contempt of Court.   

6. Vide order dated 13th October, 2011, the Court while dealing  

with I.A.  No. 10 of 2011, besides issuing certain directions,  also  

punished the officers of the defaulting State by imposing a fine of  

Rs. 2,000/- each and even imposed exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/-  

on the State of Haryana, since it had failed to take any steps in  

furtherance to the previous order.   The matter remained pending,  

the States were directed to invite tenders and sign agreements with  

the  successful  bidders  in  accordance  with  the  Rules  and  to  

complete the work of affixation of HSRP in their entire State/Union  

7

Territory.  Thereafter, this Court again passed a very detailed order  

dealing with the circumstance of each State on 8th December, 2011.  

All  these  orders,  i.e.,  the  Orders  dated  30th August,  2011,  13th  

October, 2011 and 8th December, 2011 should be read as integral  

part of this final order.

7. In the Order dated 8th December, 2011, we had directed the  

States  to  file  affidavits  of  compliance  and undertakings  that  the  

implementation of the scheme and the provisions of the Act, read in  

conjunction with the orders of this Court, shall be completed within  

the specified timeframe.   The undertakings were to be filed within  

four weeks from 25th November, 2011.  Another significant direction  

contained in that order was that all the States, except some of the  

States,  i.e.,  States of Assam, Chhattisgarh,  Haryana, Jharkhand,  

Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab, Uttarakhand and Union Territory  

of Lakshadweep, should complete the implementation of the scheme  

by 31st March, 2012.  States of Himachal Pradesh and Nagaland  

were granted further time for completing the implementation of the  

scheme in relation to old vehicles only upto 15th June, 2012.

8

8. Despite specific orders of the Court, the States of Arunachal  

Pradesh,  Meghalaya,  Chhattisgarh,  Orissa,  Tamil  Nadu,  West  

Bengal and Union Territory of Lakshadweep have failed to file the  

requisite affidavits and undertakings within the time granted.   The  

learned counsel for some of these states justified the non-filing of  

the affidavit on different grounds like that the Registry of the Court  

was closed for winter vacations on the date when the period of four  

weeks  for  filing  affidavit  expired.   This  is  factually  incorrect  

inasmuch  as  the  period  of  four  weeks  would  expire  on  24th  

December,  2011  as  per  our  order  dated  8th December,  2011.  

Though  the  Supreme  Court  closed  for  winter  vacation  on  18th  

December, 2011, the Registry was opened till 25th December, 2011.  

Therefore,  nothing prevented these  States/Union Territories  from  

filing  affidavits/undertakings  within  the  stipulated  time  i.e.  24th  

December, 2011.  Secondly, the process of tenders had not been  

finalized by the States for one reason or the other and, therefore,  

they  considered  it  unnecessary  to  file  affidavits  required  by  the  

Court’s Order.  We find these excuses without any substance.   It  

was known to everybody as to when the Court was going to close  

and  the  affidavits  could  have  been  filed  well  in  advance  to  24th  

9

December, 2011.  Even if the affidavits were not accepted on the re-

opening  of  the  Court  after  vacations,  the  counsel  should  have  

mentioned the matter before the Court, which was not done.   The  

affidavits were to be filed stating what steps have been taken by the  

respective States and undertaking was to be given for compliance  

with  the  orders  of  the  Court  for  implementation  within  the  

stipulated time.   Both these steps were not dependant upon the  

completion of the tender process or other difficulties.  The parties  

could have nevertheless filed applications, which, admittedly was  

not  done.    Therefore,  we  find  that  all  these  States  have  acted  

irresponsibly and with callousness.   

9. It should be clearly understood by the hierarchy of the State  

as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respective States  

that the Court’s time is spent on these cases, that too, at the cost of  

regular cases pending in the Court.   The orders of the Court are  

expected to be implemented by the officers of the Government and  

the learned counsel appearing for the parties without default and  

with  a  sense  of  urgency.    Though,  we  find  no  reason to  grant  

further time to these states as no justifiable ground has been stated  

before  us,  however,  in the  interest  of  justice  and by way of  last  

10

opportunity, we extend the period for filing of such affidavits and/or  

undertakings by two weeks from today, on pronouncement of this  

order.   It shall be subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs by  

each State to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, costs  

being conditional.

10. There are States which have, by and large, implemented the  

scheme and have commenced the program for fixation of HSRPs in  

their  respective  States.   These  States  are  Himachal  Pradesh,  

Manipur,  Mizoram,  Nagaland,  Sikkim,  Uttarakhand  and  Union  

Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands.  We appreciate the effort  

put by these states and would direct that they should complete the  

entire  program  in  all  respects  before  30th April,  2012  in  their  

respective States.

11. In furtherance to our order dated 8th December, 2011, learned  

Registrar,  Judicial-II,  has submitted his Report pointing out that  

some of the states have not filed affidavits/undertakings.    They  

have not taken effective steps for implementation of the scheme, in  

discharge of their statutory obligation and in compliance with the  

orders  of  the  Court  as  well.   Having  perused  the  Report  of  the  

11

Registrar and the affidavits filed on behalf  of  different states,  we  

issue the following directions:-

(a)  All States which have invited tenders, have completed  

the  process  of  finalizing  the  successful  bidder  and  

issued the  Letter  of  Intent,  but  have not  yet  signed  

agreements with -

(b)the  successful  bidder,  shall  sign  such  agreements  

within  four  weeks  from  today.   These  States  are  

Assam,  Bihar,  Gujarat,  Haryana,  Jammu  and  

Kashmir,  Jharkhand,  Punjab,  Tripura  and  Uttar  

Pradesh.  

(c) The States  which have so far  not  even finalized the  

tender process, they should do so, again, within four  

weeks from today.  Amongst others these States and  

Union Territories are Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh,  

Chandigarh, Delhi (NCT) and Puducherry.

(d) Installation of HSRP is a statutory command which is  

not only in the interest of the security of State,  but  

also serves a much larger public interest. Therefore, it  

12

is not only desirable, but mandatory, for every State to  

comply  with  the  statutory  provisions/orders  of  this  

Court  in terms of  Article  129 of  the Constitution of  

India,  1950.   All  states,  therefore,  are  mandated  to  

fully implement the scheme of fixation of HSRP in their  

entire state, positively by 30th April, 2012, in relation  

to new vehicles and 15th June, 2012 for old vehicles.  

We make it clear that they shall not be allowed -

(e) any  further  extension  of  time  for  implementation  of  

this direction.

(f) The directions contained in the  earlier  judgments  of  

this Court and more particularly, the orders dated 30th  

August, 2011, 13th October, 2011, 8th December, 2011  

and  this  order,  should  be  implemented  within  the  

extended period without default.  

(g)  In  the  event  of  default,  concerned  Secretary  

(Transport)/Commissioner,  State  Transport  Authority  

and/or any other person or authority responsible for  

such default  shall  be  liable  to be  proceeded against  

13

under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act,  

1971.

12. We grant liberty to the petitioner and/or any other person to  

take out contempt proceedings, if now there is any non-compliance  

of the orders of this Court and the statutory duty imposed upon the  

authorities  concerned  with  regard  to  implementation  and  

completion of the scheme and process of fixation of HSRP, in any  

State/Union Territory.

13. We cannot help but to notice the unwarranted conduct and  

willful  disobedience  of  the  orders  of  this  Court  by  the  State  of  

Andhra Pradesh.   This State was found to be a defaulter even in  

the earlier orders passed by this Court.   In furtherance to our order  

dated 8th December, 2011, an affidavit on behalf of the State was  

filed on 2nd January, 2012, in this Court.  This affidavit has been  

filed by the Secretary (Transport), Government of Andhra Pradesh.  

This  State  had  not  even  initiated  any  action  or  process  to  

implement the scheme, as directed under the orders of this Court.  

To shirk its responsibility, it has been stated in this affidavit that  

after passing of the order of this Court dated 8th December, 2011,  

14

the Government of Andhra Pradesh reviewed the issue and issued  

an amendment to its original Government Order dated 8th March,  

2011.  Vide its Government Order dated 24th December, 2011, the  

Government entrusted the work of implementation of the HSRP in  

the  State  of  Andhra Pradesh to  the  Andhra Pradesh State  Road  

Transport Corporation.  Strangely, the affidavit further claims that  

the  scheme  of  HSRP  is  being  implemented  according  to  the  

direction issued by this Court.  Still another affidavit was filed by  

the  Transport  Commissioner  of  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  on  

identical lines.   

14. These affidavits or even the affidavits filed earlier on behalf of  

the State of Andhra Pradesh do not even remotely suggest that any  

steps had been taken by the State for implementing the scheme of  

HSRP in compliance with the directions issued by this Court.     We  

are unable to appreciate this attitude of the State administration,  

with  which  they  have  persisted,  despite  specific  directions  

contained in the Order dated 30th August,  2011 and even in the  

earlier orders passed by this Court.   Their conduct and behaviour  

has undermined the authority of this Court as well as the dignity of  

justice.

15

15. Consequently,  we  issue  notice  to  show  cause  to  Smt.  

D.Lakshmi  Parthasarathy,  Principal  Secretary  (Transport,  Roads  

and  Building  Department),  Andhra  Pradesh  and  Shri  Hiralal  

Samaria,  Transport  Commissioner,  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  to  

show cause,   why they be not  punished in  accordance with the  

provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act for violating the orders of  

this Court.  

16. The Registry shall maintain a separate file for the contempt  

proceedings  initiated  against  these  defaulting  officers  of  Andhra  

Pradesh.

17. The State of  West  Bengal  filed its  affidavit  (dated 12th May,  

2011) of partial implementation in two districts only, on 24th May,  

2011.  Thereafter, no affidavit has been filed on behalf of this State.  

Despite  orders  of  the  Court  dated  30th August,  2011,  13th  

September,  2011,  8th December,  2011 and this  order,  they  have  

failed to file affidavit placing correct facts in regard to the further  

implementation  of  the  scheme  before  this  Court.   In  these  

circumstances  and  by  way  of  last  opportunity,  we  permit  the  

Secretary  (Transport)/  Commissioner,  State  Transport  Authority,  

16

West Bengal to file their respective affidavits within two weeks from  

today subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs.   

18. Wherever we have imposed costs for non-compliance with the  

directions  of  this  Court,  the  same  shall  be  paid  by  the  State  

Governments at the first instance.  We are of the considered view  

that the present cases are not the ones where the Court  should  

permit the public exchequer to be burdened by payment of costs.  --

In fact, the costs paid should be recovered from erring or defaulting  

officers/officials.

19. The State of Arunachal Pradesh is again a State which has  

neither filed undertaking nor affidavit in terms of the orders of this  

Court.   The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  State,  however,  

submitted that they have already started the process and would be  

able  to  complete  the  implementation of  the  scheme within three  

months.  According to the learned counsel, their predicament was  

that the successful tenderers had refused to deposit the requisite  

security amount as contemplated under the terms and conditions of  

the contract.   Be that as it may, we have already granted extension  

of  time,  and we therefore,  direct  the State of  Arunachal Pradesh  

17

now to implement the orders of this Court without fail within the  

time granted and subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs.

20. We  make  it  clear  that  this  order  shall  dispose  of  the  writ  

petition.

21.  All  the  files  that  had  been  summoned  by  this  Court  for  

ensuring  the  complete  implementation  of  the  scheme  shall  now  

revert back to the respective courts for their disposal in accordance  

-with law.   Some of the learned counsel appearing for the parties  

before us had argued that because of certain directions passed by  

the Courts concerned in these ongoing cases, the concerned States  

may not be able to finally implement the scheme within the time  

bound schedule.   We request the concerned High Courts to deal  

with  such  matters  on  priority  keeping  in  view  the  afore-stated  

directions and orders.   We further give liberty to the parties whose  

petitions are pending before this Court to make a mention before  

the concerned Bench for expeditious disposal.   We have no doubt  

in our mind that such request of the petitioners would be examined  

on its own merits by the Hon’ble Judges in the larger interest of  

national security.

18

22. Since all  aspects of this matter stand finally concluded vide  

our  orders  dated  30th August,  2011,  13th October,  2011  and  8th  

December, 2011 and ultimately by this Order, we see no reason to  

keep this petition pending on the Board of this Court.   

23. Consequently, all I.As., contempt petitions in Writ Petition No.  

510 of 2005 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 510 of 2005 stand finally  

disposed of with no order as to costs.    

24. However,  SLP(C)  No.  24497  of  2011,  SLP(C)  No.  13485  of  

2011,  Writ  Petition  (Civil)  No.  162  of  2010,  SLP(C)  Nos.  13630-

13631 of 2011 and SLP(C) No. 1894-1897 of 2012 shall now revert  

back to their respective Courts.  

25. Application  for  impleadment  as  respondent  filed  by  Ms.  

Shimnit Utsch India Pvt. Ltd., one of the successful tenderers in the  

matter relating to State of Maharashtra stands dismissed in view of  

this final order.

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

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

19

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

New Delhi February 7, 2012

20