MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA Vs UNION OF INDIA .
Bench: S.H. KAPADIA,A.K. PATNAIK,SWATANTER KUMAR
Case number: W.P.(C) No.-000510-000510 / 2005
Diary number: 21064 / 2005
Advocates: CHARU MATHUR Vs
B. KRISHNA PRASAD
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
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