Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs Union Of India & Ors

Maninderjit Singh Bitta ...

Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents

AND

IA NOS. 12 OF 2010

IN

IA No.10 OF 2010

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.510 OF 2005

O R D E R

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

referring to the judgments and directions of this Court in the

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

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

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

aforementioned case of Association of Plates (supra) was

pronounced on 30th November, 2004 and further directions were

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

to secure implementation of various statutory requirements as

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

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

judgments referred supra.

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

some States in complying with the directions of this Court still

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

that some States have not even taken initial steps to implement

the scheme of High Security Registration Plates (for short, `HSRP')

in their respective States. We regretfully note that the situation

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

State in the entire country which has successfully, in accordance

with the statutory provisions and scheme, as approved by this

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

financial limitations faced by different States are concerned, the

matter was examined by this Court and their prayer for

exemption was declined. However, they were permitted to

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

even such request was subsequently withdrawn.

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

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

was considered and for appropriate reasons, as stated in

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

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

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

the said paragraphs of the Rule would result in frustrating the

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

High Security Registration Plates on vehicles." In terms of

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

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

affixed outside the premises of the Registering Authority".

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

process of selection, the States were expected to invite tenders

and were even given liberty to consult experts prior to finalizing

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

the selected tenderers at the Regional Transport Office of a

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

this Court was to preserve public security and safety by ensuring

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

the country remains where the scheme is not implemented.

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

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

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

Manipur and Puducherry, where the tender process was followed,

the successful tenderer has been awarded the contract for

supplying security registration plates and the predicted date of

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

affidavit has been filed on behalf of these States confirming that

the scheme has been successfully completed in all the districts of

the respective States and also that the States would ensure

complete and comprehensive implementation of the scheme in

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

Transport of the respective States within four weeks from the

date of the passing of this order.

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

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

have not followed the procedure for selection and have approved

certain vendors with Type Approval Certificate (TAC) from the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cannot be permitted as it would defeat the entire exercise

undertaken by this Court over number of years. The aforesaid

States are, therefore, directed to:

a. Immediately invite tenders;

b. Finalize the entire tender process within six weeks from

today;

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

affidavit stating that tenders have been finalized and the

work of affixation of security registration plates has

begun in every district or part thereof, within two weeks

thereafter.

7. The third category include the defaulting States of

Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Tamil

Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana. These States again can

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

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

Madhya Pradesh which have informed this Court, by filing of

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

They have estimated the period of publication of tender being the

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

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

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

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

granted six weeks time for completing the process. Besides fixing

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

that this Court would be compelled to take action against default

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

well as impose exemplary costs personally recoverable from the

erring officers. However, before we take both these actions

against the above category of defaulting States, we would give

them another opportunity to complete the entire process of

publication and issue tender within six weeks from today and

commence the implementation of the scheme for fixation of HSRP

in their States immediately thereafter. The affidavits to that effect

should be filed within eight weeks from today.

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

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

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

action at all or have merely initiated the process without any

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

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

complied with, to what extent the said compliance has been

successful and finally whether they have followed the due process

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

the scheme. All these States have done nothing except praying

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

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

filed an affidavit to the effect that they have constituted a

Committee of Secretaries to approve the draft of the tender notice

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

nothing on record to show whether such approval has been

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

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

other States in this category have prayed for extension of time

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

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

States but all concerned authorities in each State throughout the

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

Court. The conduct of these States clearly reflects their

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

Their attitude is one of disobedience rather than compliance.

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

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

despite warnings being issued, including the directions contained

in order dated 7th April, 2011.

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

apparent and intentional default on the part of the concerned

officers of these defaulting States. Consequently, we issue notice

to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts

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

punished in accordance with law and why exemplary costs,

personally recoverable from the erring officers/officials, be not

imposed. Notice shall be issued to:

a. Secretary (Transport) of the defaulting States.

b. Commissioner, State Transport Authority of the

respective States.

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

ones that have taken certain effective steps to secure compliance

with the statutory provisions and the scheme. These are the

States which have invited tenders in accordance with the

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

these States have even opened the tender bids however, awarding

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

Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh,

Uttarakhand and Kerala and the Union Territories of

Lakshadweep and Andaman & Nicobar, have prayed for further

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

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

invited tenders earlier and it had received a single tender within

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

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

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

permission to re-open applications for fresh tenders which was

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

States have at least taken some steps to finalize the proper

implementation of the scheme, we consider it appropriate, though

as mentioned above, with reluctance, to grant further extension

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

process and implement the scheme in its entirety, in accordance

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

the entire process for implementation of the scheme, we direct

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

install the HSRP within eight weeks from today without exception

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

immediately thereafter.

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

have issued show cause notice for initiation of proceedings under

the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and imposition of exemplary

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

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

eight weeks from today.

.................................CJI.

(S.H. Kapadia)

...................................J.

(K.S. Radhakrishnan)

...................................J.

(Swatanter Kumar)

New Delhi

August 30, 2011