Supreme Court of India
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 280
- Decided
- 7 April 2011
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
States have no discretion to refuse implementation of the HSRP scheme; they must comply with the amended Rule 50, and failure to do so may attract contempt proceedings.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the implementation of the High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) scheme introduced under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. While earlier judgments upheld the Central Government's power to issue the scheme, many states failed to comply, either by delaying tenders, cancelling them, or taking no action at all. The Court categorised states into three groups – those that had fully implemented the scheme, those that had initiated but not completed it, and those that had done nothing. It held that states have no discretion to ignore the amended Rule 50 and must implement the HSRP scheme in its true spirit, warning that continued non‑compliance would attract contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, the Court directed defaulting states to file affidavits explaining their delay, to appear before the Court, and to complete implementation within the stipulated time, with contempt action and costs possible for further defaults.
Issues considered
- The Central Government's authority to issue a notification under Section 41(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the HSRP scheme.
- Whether states/UTs have discretion to defer or refuse implementation of the amended Rule 50 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
- Consequences of non‑compliance with the Court's directions, including contempt of court proceedings.
- The appropriate time‑bound directives to ensure full implementation of the HSRP scheme.
Legislation cited
Subjects
High Security Registration PlatesMotor Vehicles ActImplementation of statutory schemeContempt of Courts ActState compliancePublic safetyJudicial directions
Judgment
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 142
A MANINDERJIT SINGH BITIA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.,
I.A. Nos. 10 and 11 of 2010
B Writ Petition (Civil) No. 510 of 2005 & Ors.
APRIL 07, 2011
[S.H. KAPADIA, CJI., K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND
SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
c
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 41 (6) rlw r. 50 of MV Rules,
1989- Issuance of notification under- For implementation of
a new Scheme regulating issuance and fixation of new High
Security Registration Plates (HSRP) - Invitation of tenders by
D various States to implement the Scheme - Writ petition filed
challenging the power of the Central Government to issue
such Notification as well as terms and conditions of the tender
process - Dismissal of writ petition as also the connected
matters by Supreme Court - Despite the aforesaid directions,
E non-implementation of the Scheme in its true spiril._by most
of the States - Various interim applications filed before
Supreme Court - Held: As regards the status of
implementation of HSRP Scheme in the respective States
and Union Territories, the States of Meghalaya, Sikkim and
F Goa have implemented the Scheme, some of the States have
initiated the process but could not complete it and some have
not taken any steps in this regard - All those States which
have invited tenders but have not finalized the same need to
be cautioned that just taking a step in furtherance to the order
of the Court cannot be even called substantial compliance
G much less complete compliance of the same in its true spirit
and substance - Thus, they are directed to complete the
process within the stipulated time and ensure implementation
of HSRP Scheme at the earliest as also file affidavits before
H 142
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITIA v. UNION OF INDIA & 143
ORS.
this Court showing complete compliance - As regards the A
category of States which have not even initiated any process
for compliance of their statutory duty, it is an intentional
disobedience of the orders of the Court- Obedience of orders
of this Court is necessary for preserving the integrity of the
constitutional institution - It is not only desirable but an B
essential requirement of law - Such course attains greater
significance since it is in relation to attainment of a public
purpose and public interest - Thus, the Secretary, Transport!
Commissioner, State Transport Authority of the defaulting
States of Delhi, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh directed to be c
present on the next date of hearing and show cause why
proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 be not initiated against them, and also comply with
other directions contained in the said Order - Senior officers
of the other defaulting States which have not taken any steps 0
directed to file a personal affidavit stating the reasons for not
complying with the said Order - In the event of default;
proceedings would be initiated against them under the
provisions of the Contempt of Coutts Act and costs would also
be imposed, recoverable from the defaulting officers E
personally - Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - r.50 - Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971.
Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India
(2004) 5 SCC 364; Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India
(2008) 7 SCC 328; Achhan Rizvi (II) v. State of U. P. (1994) F
6 sec 752 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
(2004) s sec 364 Referred to. Para 2
G
(2008) 1 sec 328 Referred to. Para 3
(1994) 6 sec 1s2 Referred to. Para 14
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: IA Nos.10 and 11 of
2010 H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.
A IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) N0.510 OF 2005.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
8 WITH
I.A. No. 12 in I.A.No. 10.
In
C Writ Petition (C) No. 510 of 2005.
R.F. Nariman, S. Hari Haran, Pradhuman Gohil, Vikas
Singh, Taruna Singh, Charu Mathur for the Petitioner.
A. Mariarputham, Adv. Genl. T.S. Doabia, Jayshree
D Anand, Manjit Singhvi, V. Madhukar, AAG, S.W.A. Qadri,
Sunita Sharma, C.K. Sharma, Gunwant Dara, B. Krishna
Prasad, D.S. Mahra, Anil Katiyar, Aruna Mathur, Yusuf Khan,
Avneesh Arputham, Megha Gaur (for Arputham, Aruna & Co.),
Hemantika Wahi, Nupur Kanungo, V.G. Pragasam, S.J.
E Aristotle, Prabu Ramasubramanian, Krishnanad Pandeya,
Sanjay R. Hegde, Abhishek Malviya, Radha Shyam Jena,
Aruneshwar Gupta, Ranjan Mukherjee, S. Bhowmick, S.C.
Ghosh, Naveen Sharma, B.S. Banthia, Avijit Bhattachajee,
Sarbani Kar, Debjani Das Purkayashta, Bidyabrata Acharya,
F K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish, Gopal Singh, Manish
Kumar, Chandan Kumar, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Atul Jha,
Rajesh Srivastava, Ramesh Babu M.R., D. Bharathi Reddy,
Kamini Jaiswal, Arun K. Sinha, Atul Jha, D.K. Sinha, Ekta
Singh, Kuldip Singh, Vikas Mehta, T.V. George, A. Subhashini,
G Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Sapam Blswajit Meitei, Ratan
Kumar Choudhuri, Vartika Sahay (for Coporate Law Group),
Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Balaji Srinivasan, Anil Shrivastav,
Naresh K. Sharma, G. Prakash, Beena Prakash, V. Senthil,
Vivekta Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Edward Belho, K. Enatolli
H
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. UNION OF INDIA & 145
ORS.
Serna, Vljaya, Balaji Srinivasan, Sanjay Kharde, Asha G. Nair, A
Devesh Kumar Devesh, Milind Kumar, T. Harish Kumar, P.
Prasanth, V. Pattabhiram, G.N. Reddy, Jayshree Anand, K.K.
Mahalik, Ajay Pal for the Respondents.
The following order of the Court was delivered 8
ORDER
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 c
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 issued an order dated o
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 E
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 F
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. 41of2003 were referred to a larger
Bench of three Judges of this Court by order of reference dated G
26th May, 2005 in the case of Association of Registration
Plates v. Union of India [(2004) 5 sec 364], as there was
difference of opinion between the learned Members of the
Bench dealing with the case. The three Judge Bench finally
H
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.
A 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 challenge made to the provisions of the
Rules, statutory order issued by the Central Government and
B 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
C res'ulted 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:
D
"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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H in view."
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITIA v. UNION OF INDIA & 147
ORS.
Despite the above judgments of the Court, most of the A
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 B
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 C
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, D
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 E
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,
2010 noticing the grounds taken up by the State of Kerala and
they were permitted to implement the scheme phase-wise and F
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. 51 O of 2005 praying for modification of
the order dated 13th August, 2010 stating that the State of G
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 H
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 5 S.C.R.
A 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
8
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
C for orders on 11th March, 2011. During the course of hearing,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Kera la, 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
D 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 ph~sed manner as it would ensure its best to implement the
same in the extended period or at the earliest.
E
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
F 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
G reads as under :
H
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. UNION OF INDIA & 149
.. ORS.
;:, . OLate •:Hatus as on uate A
No.
1. Andhra Pradesh No Action yet.
2. Arunachal Pradesh No Action yet.
B
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 c
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 D
07. The submissions of the bids
were deferred after the pre bid
meeting. No further action has
been taken by the State
E
7. Chandigarh . No action yet.
8. Daman & Diu Tender issued in Apr'09 and
cancelled in Apr' 2010. Fresh
tender yet to be issued.
F
9. Dadar & Nagar Tender issued in Apr'09 and
Haveli cancelled in Apr' 2010. Fresh
tender yet to be issued.
10. Delhi No Action yet.
G
11. Government of India No direct ·action for
implementation of the scheme
required to be taken by GOI.
12. Goa Scheme has been
H
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R.
A implemented in August 2009
13. Gujarat No Action yet.
14. Haryana No Action yet.
B 15. Himachal Pradesh No Action yet.
16. Jharkhand No Action yet.
17. J&K No Action yet.
c 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
0 matter is pending before the
Karnataka High court against
cancellation of tender.
19 Kera la Notice Inviting Tender issued on
E 06.10.10 submission date for
tenders for 3 districts was fixed on
31st Jan 201.1, but Tonnjes
Eastern Security Technologies
Pvt. Ltd. challenge the tender
F 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
G financial bids of technically
qualified bidders were opened.
Subsequently the tender has been
cancelled.
21 Manipur The State Government had floated
H th.o. <:>nrl <:>ftor , inn
-
o I II I
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. UNION OFINDIA & ~51
ORS.
and has identified the lowest A
bidder. No further progress in
terms of implementation.
22 Meghalaya Scheme has been
implemented in August 2006. B
23 Mizoram The State Government had floated
the tender and after processing
and has identified the lowest
bidder. No further progress.
c
24 Madhya Pradesh No action yet.
25 Maharashtra Tender issued in June'07.
Financial bid.s were open in
2008.Now State Government
wants to add new RFID D
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 E
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 F
a Central Statute.
26 Nagaland Contract signed. Implementation
in progress. Price Notification
. awaited .
G
27 Orissa Pre-Qualification Bid got opened
on 04.06.2010 and further the
evaluation process is currently
going on by the State
Government. H
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R.
A
28 Pondicherry Tender floated in Apr'07. Financial
bids were open but final decision
yet to be taken.
29 Punjab No action yet.
B
30 Rajasthan The G.O. was issued on 29th
September 2008 notifying 11th
March 2009 as the
implementation date. But due to
c the political rivalry the new
Government suspended the
contract on 6 March'09 for an
indefinite period.
31 Sikkim Scheme implemented in March
D 2009.
32, Tripura Fresh tender issued on 15
January 2011 but unqualified
bidder challenge the earlier tender
E which was cancelled. Matter is
pending before Guahati High
Court at Agartalla Bench.
33 Tamil Nadu No action yet.
F 34 Uttar Pradesh No action yet.
35 Uttarakhand Fresh tender was issued in 07
July 2010. Submission of bids
deferred indefinitely.
G 36 West Bengal Tender issued but final decision
yet to be taken.
H
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. UNION OF INDIA & 153
ORS.
A bare reading of this chart shows that a large number of A
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 8
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 C
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. Sorne 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 D
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 E
have not taken any action whatsoever, despite judgments and
specific orders of this Court right from the year 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 F
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.
G
All those States which have invited tenders but have not
finalized the same resulting in non~itnplementation 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
H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R.
A be even called substantial compliance much less complete
compliance of the same in its true spirit and substanca. 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
B 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 statutory duty, obedience to the orders of this Court and
C 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
D 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
E 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(//) v. State of U.P. [(1994) 6 SCC 752) :
F
"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
G
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."
H Disobedience of Court orders, more so persistent
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITIA v. UNION OF INDIA & 155
ORS.
disobedience, has been viewed very seriously by the A
concerned 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 8
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 C
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 D
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/ E
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, 1971. De
hors the issuance of the above show cause notice, these States F
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 G
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
H
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.
A 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
8 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
C 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 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,
D 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
E 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.
F N.J. Matter Pending.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "High Security Registration Plates"Sign in to search