Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs Union Of India & Ors

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 13th 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. State Status as on Date

No.

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 & Tender issued and submission on 18 March 2011 Nicobar 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 Tender issued in Apr'09 and cancelled in Apr' 2010. Fresh tender yet to be issued.

Haveli

10. Delhi No Action yet.

11. Government of No direct action for implementation of the scheme required to be taken by GOI.

India

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. No Action yet.

Jharkhand

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