MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTAversusVIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.

                             [2016] 7 S.C.R. 934


A                     MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA
                                     v.
                        VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.
                  (Contempt Petition (C) No. 483 OF 2013)
B                              JULY 13,2016
              [T.S. THAKUR, CJI, R.K. AGRAWAL AND
                       R. BANUMATHI, JJ.j
           Contempt of Courts Act: Contempt petition filed highlighting
    issue of impleme111ation of the High Security Registration Plates
c   (HSRP) scheme in disobedience of Supreme Court :S orders -
    Allegation that the respondents-co/1/enmors failed lo implement the
    HSRP scheme in its true spirit and did not ensure the implementation
    of the orders of Supreme Court and failed to discharge the statutory
    duty imposed upon them by law by not taking any appropriate action
D   against Mis Utsav and its consortium par111ers for violating the terms
    of tender conditions and directions of Supreme Court - Held: As
    per the Supreme Court's order dated 8. 12.2011, sub-contracts were
    not permitted for manufacture of HSRP - Mis Utsav had outsourced
    the work to an agency - Prima facie there was violation of 1:50 of
    CMV Rules - Mis. Utsav gave an undertaking to the effect that in
E   fi1ture it shall not outsource the blank plate manufacturing as
    ;obwork and that the HSRP scheme will be implemented as per the
    terms and conditions of the co/1/ract - Jn view of the undertaking
    filed by Mis. Utsav and the passage of time, the contempt proceedings
    are 1101 proceeded - Howeve1: the respectfre Slates given liberty to
F   proceed against 1\1ls. Utsav or the respective SPVfor violatio11, if
    an;-: noticed or brought to its notice - DirectionslGuideli11es issued
    for proper i111ple111entatio11 of HSRP scheme - Motor Vehicles Act,
    1988 - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - r.50.
          Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989: dO - Type of Approval
G
    Certificate (TAC) and Conformity of Production (CoP) - Meaning
    of
          Disposing of the contempt petitions, the Court
          HELD: 1. Petitioner alleges that though M/s Utsav has
    informed ARAI (testing agency) only about the existence of .two
H   manufacturing plants i.e. Himachal Pradesh and Delhi, Blank High
                                     934
 MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.                     935



Security Plates are manufactured by Mis. Utsav Safety Systems         A
Pvt. Ltd. at a plant in Assam by outsourcing the work to M/s
Rosmerta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The *Order dated 08.12.2011
does not permit sub-contracts to be awarded by the contractor to
whom the contract for manufacturing and fixation of HSRP is
awarded a11d accordingly cognizance of the contempt petition is
                                                                       B
taken. [Para 14] (946-G-H; 947-A]
      2. Mis. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. has got a tender
for manufacturing HSRPs at least in seven states by entering
into Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) either with Mis. Linkpoint or
with Mis. Rosmerta. [Para 22] [950-H]
                                                                       c
      3. Type of Approval Certificate (TAC) and Conformity of
Production (CoP): Once a person has been declared successful
bidder for the manufacturing of HSRPs then such bidder has to
obtain TAC and CoP from the testing agency before starting
manufacturing. Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules
1989 provides for form and manner of display of registration           D
marks. Rule 50 authorizes the testing agency to give TAC to
individual manufacturer for the manufacture of HSRPs. At
present, there are four testing agencies to issue TAC which include
the Automative Research Association of India (ARAI); Vehicle
Research and Development Establishment (VRDE); Central Road            E
Research Institute (CRRI), New Delhi. The successful bidder
for the manufacturing of HSR plates after completion of
manufacturini; of HSR plates to apply for TAC, has to pay the
prescribed fee and submit prototype samples of licensed plates
conforming to the specifications under the rules. After brief
checking of approval of drawings, each manufacturer will have to       F
submit prototype samples of the licensed plates conforming to
the drawing approved by the institute. The testing and evaluation
of HSRP samples shall be as per the specifications laid down in
the gazette notifications. [Para 23] (951-G-H; 952-A-C]
      4. From the report of the minutes of the various meetings        G
and report of the inspection team, it is seen that Mis. Rosmerta
is not a Technical Partner or a Financial Partner (except in the
NCT of Delhi) in any of the States where M/s. Utsav has got a
tender of manufacturing HSRPs. As per the HSRP Order of2001,
HSRPs have to be certified by the testing agencies. Manufacturing      H
936           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2016] 7 S.C.R.


A     unit of Mis. Rosmerta in the State of Assam has not been certified
      by any of the testing agencies. As per the CoP guidelines, the
      manufacturer of HSRPs has to inform the testing agency which
      had granted the TAC within one month of commencement of
      manufacturing and thereafter has to inform after every fifteen
      lakhs plates manufactured or two years whichever is earlier. As
B
      per the report of the inspecting team dated 29.11.2013, Mis.
      Rosmerta-Assam Plant had manufactured a total number of
      5725221 blank HSRPs and distributed to consortium partners of
      all States. However, Mis. Rosmerta has not been granted the
      CoP certificate from the testing agency, evidently the HSRPs
c     manufactured at Mis Rosmerta Assam Plant could not have been
      verified by the testing agency. [Para 25) (953-C-E)
             5. There seems to be prima facie violation of Rule 50 of
      CMV Rules and orders passed by this Court. The question is
      whether the respondents/officials are to be proceeded against
D     for wilful disobedience of the various orders passed by this Court.
      Mis. Utsav has given an undertaking to the effect that in future it
      shall not outsource the blank plate manufacturing as jobwork and
      that the HSRP scheme will be implemented as per the terms and
      conditions of the contract. In view of the undertaking filed by Ml
      s. Utsav and the passage of time, the contempt proceedings are
E     not proceeded. However, it is open to the respective states to
      proceed against M/s. Utsav or the respective SPV for violation,
      if any, noticed or brought to its notice. In view of the continued
      non-compliance of Authority's instructions and statutory
      violations, the State of Madhya Pradesh has terminated the
F     Concessionaire Agreement. The Delhi Government also issued
      show cause notice dated 10.03.2014 to Mis. Rosmerta HSRP
      Ventures Pvt. Ltd. for non-compliance/violation of the statutory
      scheme and orders of this Court. It is open to the Delhi
      Government and other States to proceed against the holders of
      concessionaire agreements in case of any violation of the statutory
G     scheme and orders of this Court. [Paras 27, 28] (954-B-C; 955-
      A-B, D-E]
            6. The main concern of the petitioner is that Mis. Utsav
      Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. which is holding TAC issued by ARAI
      has to manufacture the HSRP in its own plant and it cannot give
H
 MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.                           937



incomplete plates or jobwork to other consortium partners namely            A
M/s. Linkpoint Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Rosmerta
Technologies Ltd. who are selling illegal HSRPs in various States.
ARAI has no role to play so far as activities of M/s. Linkpoint
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Mis. Rosmerta Technologies Ltd.
are concerned. ARAI has stated that it has no role to play in job
                                                                            B
work and that Mis. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. shall exercise
complete control over all security features in its possession and
shall be responsible for the use of any security feature on
registration plate in the open market either by himself or by any
other person on his behalf. In order to enable the statutory
authorities to keep a control over the implementation of the                 c
scheme, directions/guidelines are issued for proper
implementation of the HSRP Scheme [Paras 30, 34) [956-E-G;
957-F)
      Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India and Ors.
      (2012) 1 SCC 707; Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union                    D
      of India and Ors. 2012 (4) SCC 568 : 2012 (1) SCR
      874; Mis Rosemerta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (1)
      sec 707 - referred to.
                       Case Law Reference
c2912) 1 sec 101                referred to          Para 1                  E
2oq (1) SCR 874                 referred to          Paras 1, 10
2012 {1) SCC 707                referred to          Para 10
      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (C) No.
483 of2013.in W. P. (C) No. 510 of2005
                               WITH                                          F
      Contempt Petition (C) No. 3 of 2015 in W. P. (C) No. 510 of
2005.
      Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.
      Maninder Singh, ASG, Arvind Verma, Paras Kuhad, Sanjiv Sen,
Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advs., Suiyanarana Singh, AAG, Surain Uppal, Hari haran,    G
Ms. Charu Mathur, Ajay Sharma, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Gunwant
Dara, Zaid Ali, Ms. Sunita Sharma, D. S. Mahra, Piyush Kumar, Ms.
Vanshaja Shukla, Aditya Narayan Singh, Samir Ali Khan, C. D. Singh,
Darpan Bhuyan, Anip Sachthey, Saakaar Sardana, Ms. Shagun Matta,
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, S. S. Shamsheiy, Amit Sharma, Sandeep Singh,           H
938            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016) 7 S.C.R.


A     Milind Kumar, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Ms. Bina
      Madhavan, Kun al Cheema, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, A. P. Mayee, Jayesh
      Gaurav, Ratan Chudhary, Rajesh K. Singh, Sanjay K. Vesen, Saurabh
      Ajay Gupta, Saurabh Singhal, Sunil Fernandes, Raghav Chadha, R. N.
      Karanjawala, Dabmalya Banerjee, Jasmeet Singh, Ms. Jyotika Jain, Ms.
      Jaimet Saran, Ms. Tanya Pujji, Pradeep Bakshi, Ms. Jaya Khanna, Ms.
B
      Ranjeeta Rohtagi, Ms. Manik Karaanjawalaa, (For M/s. Karanjawala
      & Co.), Ankur Mittal, Ranjan Mukherjee, S. C. Ghosh, Sumit Goel, (For
      M/s. Parekh & Co.), G. N. Reddy, Bala Shivudu, Ms. N. Shoba, Sri
      Ram J. Thalapathy, V. Adhimoolam, Shilp Vi nod, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia,
      Mukesh Verma, Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Anil Kumr, Anurag Gupta, A
c     Venayagam Balan, Praveen Chaturvedi, Rudreshwar Singh, Samir Ali
      Khan, Ad vs., with him for the appearing parties.
            The Judgment of the Com1 was delivered by
             R. BANUMATHI, J. I. The instant contempt petitions have
      been filed by the petitioner herein highlighting the issue of implementation
D     of Scheme of High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) in disobedience
      of this Court's order dated 08.12.2011 repo11ed in (2012) 1 SCC 707
      titled Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India & Ors. and order
      dated 07.02.2012 rep011ed in (2012)4 SCC 568 titled Ma11inde1jit Singh
      Bit/a vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in W.P. No.510 of 2005 and
E     connected matters. In these contempt petitions, the petitioner alleges
      that the respondents-contemnors have not ensured the implementation
      of the orders of this Court and have failed to discharge the statutory
      duty imposed upon them by law by not taking any appropriate action
      against M/s. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd and its consortium partners
      for violating the terms of tender conditions and directions of this Court.
F
             2. The matter was heard at length on various dates. Having regard
      to the arguments advanced in extenso, it is necessa1y to refer to the
      factual matrix of the case which led to the filing of these contempt
      petitions:- After the terrorist attack on the Parliament in 2002, urgency
      was felt to check usage of motor vehicles in terrorists' activities.
G     Therefore, the Central Government on the recommendation of its
      Technical Committee devised the scheme of HSRP, so as to ensure
      public safety, security and to curb the increasing menace of vehicle theft;;
      and their usage in commission of crimes like murder, dacoity, kidnapping
      etc. With this avowed object, Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles
H     Rules, 1989 (for brevity 'CMV Rules') which deals with "Form and
  MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VJ.JAY CHHIBBER & ORS.                             939
                 [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

manner of display of registration marks on the motor vehicles" was              A
amended by the Central Government in exercise of its rule making power
under Section 64 of the MV Rules. The amended scheme of rule 50
substituted the erstwhile system where the registration number was given
by the RTO and the ordinary registration plates obtained from the open
market were installed on the vehicles. Rule 50 was amended to ensure
                                                                                B
the technical competence of the prospective manufacturers, controlled
issuance of registration plates and a manufacturer can manufacture the
said plates only after it has got Type Approved Certificate (TAC) from
one of the autonomous certifying agencies. Supply of the plates to the
vehicular users can be made only after the grant of certificate of
Conformity of Production (CoP).                                                 c
      3. The Government of India on 28.03 .200 I issued a notification
und~r Section 41(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the
Act") read with Rule 50 of the MY· Rules for implementation of the
provisions of the Act in terms of sub-Section (3) of Section I 09 of the
Act. The Central Government issued an order dated 22.08.2001 which               D
deals with various facets of manufacture, supply and fixation of new
high security registration plates. The Central Government also issued a
notification dated 16. I0.2001 for further implementation of the said order
and HSRP scheme. In order to implement the scheme, various States
also invited tenders for manufacture and supply of HSRP.
                                                                                 E
       4. A Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No.41 of2003 was tiled in this
Comi by the Association of Registration Plates, 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 aforesaid writ petition,
various other writ petitions were filed before the different High Cou1is,
raising the same challenge and those writ petitions came to be transferred       F
to this Court. By the Judgment reported in (2005) I SCC 679 titled
Association of Registration Plates vs. Union of India & Ors., this
Court dismissed the Writ Petition(C) No. 41 of2003 and other connected
matters, and upheld the validity of rule 50 as well as tender conditions.
While doing so, this Court also issued ce1iain directions for appropriate        G
implementation of the scheme. The relevant para (3 I) reads as under:-
       "31. Justifying the selection ofa single manufacturer for a region
       or an entire State, to ensure security considerations, the following
       factors have been highlighted as subserving the public interest:
                                                                                 H
940   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 7 S.C.R.


A     I. That it would not be possible to implement the scheme since
      the scheme provides that the approved manufacturer would
      use the premises .of the State RTO and lay down V-Sat links
      so that the entire State is networked on a common platform.
      2. It would be impossible for the State to provide all the TAC-
B     holders space and infrastructure in the RTO premises.
      3. [t would be difficult for the State to identify the source of
      any counterfeiting in case there are multiple manufacturers.
      This would severely compromise the security considerations
      involved in the scheme.
c     4. Different manufacturers would lead to variations in price
      between different manufacturers.
      5. The State is at a disadvantage since all the manufacturers
      would prefer to concentrate on supplying only in Kolkata and
      would not go to the other far-flung RTOs where he would not
D     recover the returns on his investment.
      6. rn case more than one manufacturer operates within the
      State, it will lead to discrepancy and non-uniformity in price
      structure prevailing in different regions.
      7. Difficulty in assimilation of data from more than one
E
      manufacturer would lead to disaggregated and confusing
      database signals. Such sensitive and security-related business
      must be governed by uniform database management processes
      and unified standardised coding practices.
      8. Different manufacturers would mean that there would be
F
      variation in quality of the material and in terms of workmanship.
      9. Possible duplication of registration plates due to competition
      between manufacturers of different regions and lack of
      aggregated security-controlled database management systems.
G     I 0. Non-conformity of data of different manufacturers would
      lead to confusion and integration of data from the State RTOs.
      11. Difficulty in fixing up the answerability on any one
      manufacturer for not following the prescribed procedure.
      12. Confidentiality of the public database would be severely
H     compromised.
  MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.                            941
                 [R. BANUMATHI, J.)

          13. Provision of training of RTO personnel by each                  A
          manufacturer would be a logistic nightmare and would lead to
          confusion and further lead to the system being compromised
          severely.
          14. It is also important to note that each registration plate has
          a unique number, and consequently, all the RTOs are required         B
          to be electronically connected to each other; ifthe vendors are
          allowed to proliferate, this connection would not be possible,
          and would lead to complete chaos."
      5. It was observed that none of the tender conditions were arbitrary
and discriminatory and in para (40), it was held as under:-                    C
      "40. Selecting one manufacturer through a process of open
      competition is not creation of any monopoly, as contended, in
      violation of Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution read with clause
      (6) of the said article. As is sought to be pointed out, the
      implementation involves large network of operations of highly            D
      sophisticated materials. The manufacturer has to have embossing
      stations within the premises of the RTO. He has to maintain the
      data of each plate which he would be getting from his main unit.
      It has to be cross-checked by the RTO data. There has to be a
      server in the RTO's office which is linked with all RTOs in each
      State and thereon linked to the whole nation. Maintenance of the         E
      record by one and supervision over its activity would be simpler
      for the State if there is one manufacturer instead of multi-
      manufacturers as suppliers. The actual operation of the scheme
      through the RTOs in their premises would get complicated and
      confused if multi-manufacturers are involved. That would also            F
      seriously impair the high security concept in affixation of new
      plates on the vehicles. If there is a single manufacturer he can be
      forced to go and serve rural areas with thin vehicular population
      and less volume of business. Multi-manufacturers might concentrate
      only on urban areas with higher vehicular population."
                                                                               G
        6. After the decision in Association of Registration Plates
(supra}, the petitioner herein being aggrieved with the non-implementation
ofHSRP scheme in its true letter and spirit, launched the second round
of litigation by filing Writ Petition (C) No.510 of 2005, wherein, this
Court passed various orders dated 08.05.2008, 05.05.2009, 07.04.2011,
30.08.2011, 13.10.2011, 08.12.2011 and 07 .02.2012, so as to ensure the        H
942             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 7 S.C.R.


A     integrity and implementation of the scheme and gave various directions
      to the States and manufacturers. This Court vi de Order dated 08.05.2008
      reported in (2008) 7 sec 328 observed as under:
             " ... we feel it would be in the interest ofall concerned ifthe States
             and the Union Territories take definite decision as to whether
B            there is need for giving effect to the amended Rule 50 and the
             Scheme ofHSRP and the modalities to be followed."
              7. Despite the above order of this Court, most of the States have
      failed to implement the scheme in its true spirit. This resulted in filing of
      I.A. No.5 in Writ Petition (C) No.510 of 2005 wherein the applicant
c     prayed for a clarification of order dated 08.05 .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 the Order
      dated 05.05.2009, this Court held thatthere is no discretion given to the
      States/Union Territories in implementation of the amended rules.
D            8. Further, by an order dated 07.04.2011 of this Court, reported in
      (2011) 11 SCC 315, passed in I.A Nos. I 0-11 of2010, wherein the States
      sought extension of time for implementation of the HSRP scheme, this
      Court took serious view of the matter that there are certain States which
      have not even started the process of implementing the HSRP Scheme
      and directed such States to file affidavits explaining why contempt
E     proceedings should not be initiated. It was observed by this Court that
      despite tenders being issued long back, no further step was taken.
           9. Thereafter, vi de Order dated 30.08.2011 reported in (2011) 14
      SCC 273, this Comt again took the serious view of the non-implementation
      of HSRP scheme. The Court observed that:-
F
            " ... 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 ... "
G
             10. Vide Order dated 13.10.2011 reported in (2012) I SCC 273
      titled Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India And Ors., this Court
      again noted the disobedience of earlier order of this Court by the State
      ofHaryana and punished them for contempt, imposing a fine ofRs.2,000/-
      each on those who were responsible for disobedience of this Court's
H     order and exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- on the State. Vi<le Order dated
  MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.                             943
                 [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

08.12.2011 reported in (2012) I SCC 707 titled Maninderjit Singh Bitta         A
vs. Union of India And Ors., this Court referred to the affidavits filed
by the various States and in order to ensure proper implementation of
the HSRP Scheme, gave general directions in para (53). It is apposite
to refer to the relevant direction in para (53 .5) which reads as under:-
       "5. On behalfofthe petitioner and some of the States, a question        B
      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 specialised experience
      for manufacture and 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         c
      the performance of the contract. ln 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 State/Union Territory concerned to take
      appropriate decision with reference to the facts of a given case         D
      and in accordance with law. Primafacie, 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 the performance of the contract."
       11. By the aforesaid order dated 08.12.2011 in paras (4) to (6),         E
this Court has also set aside the approach adopted by the State of Andlua
Pradesh in tender proceedings and directed the State of Andhra Pradesh
to issue fresh tender, award the contract and commence implementation
of the HSRP Scheme positively by 29.02.2012. Paras (4) to (6) of Order
dated 08.12.2011 read as under:-
                                                                                F
      "4. It is the case of the State of Andhra Pradesh that it published
      the notice inviting the tenders on 8-10-2011 and the due date of
      the tender bids was 26-11-2011. The State claims that it has
      prepared a comprehensive framework to implement the HSRP
      scheme and authorised Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
      Corporation to roll out the end to end solution for the project. It       G
      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.
                                                                                H
944            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 7 S.C.R.


A           5. Again, the process adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh is
            not only in violation of the directions contained in paras 39 and 40
            of the judgment of this Court in Assn. of Registration Plates J(
            Union of India but is also contrary to the Notification dated
            16.09.2011 which was issued under sub-section (3) of Section
            I09 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and called the Motor Vehicles
B
            (New High Security Registration Plates) Order, 200 I. This Order
            does not permit the completion of the HSRP scheme in the manner
            sought to be adopted by the State of Andlua Pradesh. The State
            was to award the contract but the same has not so far been
            awarded.
c           6. In the circumstances aforementioned, we direct the State of
            Andhra Pradesh to issue fresh tender, award the contract and
            commence the implementation of the scheme positively by
            29.02.2012. It has assured this Court that now it would positively
            abide by the time schedule and do the needful."
D            12. In the said order the approach adopted by the Government of
      NCT of Delhi was commented upon and this Court observed that the
      procedure adopted by them, is not in conformity with the judgments of
      this Court. The directions relating to the Government ofNCT of Delhi in
      paras (19) and (20) read as under:-
E           "19. 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
F           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 SO of the Motor Vehicles Rules,
            1989 (for short "the Rules"), the Motor Vehicles (New High
            Security Registration Plates) Order, 2001 nor the judgments of
            this Court pennit sub-contracts to be awarded by the contractor
G           to whom the award for manufacture and fixation of HSRP is
            awarded.
            20. Furthermore, in their affidavit dated 26-11-2011 it has been
            stated that DIMTS is also taking other steps and it has divided the
            implementation process into two parts: Firstly, procurement of
H           blank HSRP conftnning to Rule SO of the Rules and personalisation
 MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.                               945
                [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

      of plates by embossing, hot stamping of number plates, quality            A
      checking, printing of third number plate, set matching, dispatch,
      transportation and installation of HSRP. Secondly, it is not
      pennissible 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
                                                                                 8
      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 DIM TS.
      They should not let the sub-contractors or other parties to have
      control over the manufacturing processing and fixation of HSRP             c
      in any manner, whatsoever. They should ensure that one single
      person is responsible for manufacturing, affixation of seals,
      imprinting ofnumbers and affixation ofHSRP on the vehicles in
      the NCT of Delhi."
       13. Finally, vide an Order dated 07.02.2012 reported in (2012) 4         D
SCC 568 titled Maninde1jit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India And Ors.,
this Court disposed of the W.P.(C) 510/2005 by sending the files to
respective High Courts to take action as per law and in para ( 17), it was
held as under:-
      "17. Having perused the report of the Registrar and the affidavits         E
      filed on behalf of different States, we issue the following directions:
          (a) All States which have invited tenders, have completed the
          process of finalising the successful bidder and issued the letter
          of intent, but have not yet signed agreements with the successful
          bidder, shall sign such agreements within four weeks from today.       F
          These States are Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Jammu and
          Kashmir, Jharkhand, Punjab, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh.
          (b) The States which have so far not even finalised the tender
          process, they should do so, again, within four weeks from today.
          Amongst others these States and Union Territories are                  G
          Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Chandigarh, Delhi (NCT) and
          Puducherry.
          (c) Installation ofHSRP 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 is not only desirable,
                                                                                H
946             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2016] 7 S.C.R.


A               but mandatory, for every State to comply with the statutory
                provisions/orders of this Court in terms of A11icle 129 of the
                Constitution oflndia, 1950. All States, therefore, are mandated
                to fully implement the Scheme of fixation of HSRP in their
                entire State, positively by 30-4-2012 in relation to new vehicles
                and 15-6-2012 for old vehicles. We make it clear that they
B
                shall not be allowed any further extension of time for
                implementation of this direction.
                (d) The directions contained in the earlier judgments of this
                Court and more pa11icularly, the orders dated 30-8-2011, 13-
                10-2011, 8-12-2011 and this order, should be implemented within
c               the extended period without default.
                ( e) In the event of default, Secretary (Transport)/Commissioner,
                State Transport Authority and/or any other person or authority
                concerned responsible for such default shall be liable to be
                proceeded against under the provisions of the Contempt of
D               Cou11s Act, 1971."
      This Court further gave liberty to approach this Court again, in case of
      violation of HSRP scheme. It was pe11inently observed:-
             "18. We grant liberty to the petitioner and/or any other person to
 E           take out contempt proceedings, if now there is any non-compliance
             with the orders of this Cou11 and the statutory duty imposed upon
             the authorities concerned with regard to implementation and
             completion of the scheme and process of fixation of HS RP, in any
             State/Union Territory."

 F            14. Based on the liberty so granted, the petitioner has now launched
      the third round ofl itigation by tiling the instant contempt petitions alleging
      the disobedience of the various Orders of this Court discussed
      hereinabove, specifically orders dated 08.12.2011 and 07.02.2012. This
      Court vide Order dated 01.05.2014 observed that as per the bid document,
      the location of the factory of Mis. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. (the
 G    technical partner) is disclosed at PlotNoJA, Phase-IV, Industrial Area,
      Golemath, District Bi laspur, Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner alleges that
      though Mis Utsav has informed ARAI (testing agency) only about the
      existence of two manufacturing plants i.e. Himachal Pradesh and Delhi,
      Blank High Security Plates are manufactured by Mis. Utsav Safety
      Systems Pvt. Ltd. at a plant in Assam by outsourcing the work to Mis
H
  MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.                           947
                 [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

Rosmerta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Order dated 08.12.2011 reported           A
in (2012) 1 SCC 707 does not permit sub-contracts to be awarded by the
contractor to whom the contract for manufacturing and fixation ofHSRP
is awarded and accordingly this Court took the cognizance of the
contempt petitions.
        15. Petitioner has alleged that Mis. Utsav in utter violation of      B
Rule 50, ierms of bid and TAC and various orders passed by this Court
has manufactured HSR plates through job work at an unauthorised unit
in Assam and by doing so, Mis. Utsav has deliberately disobeyed the
various orders passed by this Court from time to time and the respondents
have deliberately chosen not to take any action against Mis. Utsav and
private contractors despite there being clear violation of the rules and      c
orders passed by this Court and such omission in not initiating action
against the violators amounts to contempt of court and the respondents
are liable to be punished on account of their having committed wilful
disobedience of the orders of this Court. It is further averred that the
petitioner had filed the complaint against Mis. Utsav, Mis. Rosmerta          D
and Mis. Linkpoint pursuant to which a meeting was held in the Ministry
of Road Transport and Highways on 29.10.2013. Referring to the
manufacture and supply of HSR Plates from the Assam unit, in the
meeting, decision was taken to constitute a team of three members to
inspect and verify the procedure and manufacturing activities in the plant
located at Assam inter-alia on various aspects i.e. quantity of HSR           E
Plates produced till date which includes: (i) sizes and colours of plates;
(ii) laser code records; (iii) security feature records and (iv) status of
plants at Assam including where the job work is done etc. The three
members committee gave its inspection report dated 29.11.2013. As
per the repo1i, the team observed that there is only one building in the      F
same compound having the address of 54, Brahmaputra Industrial Park,
Si la, Si la Sinduri Ghopa Changsari, Kamrup, Assam and the same is
divided into two parts; one part is registered in the name of Mis. Utsav
and other pmi is registered in the name of Mis. Rosmerta. The committee
observed that Mis. Utsav was supplying raw material to Mis. Rosmerta
who in turn was manufacturing blank plates as a job work with the             G
material supplied by Mis. Utsav. Based on the inspection, the team
recorded its conclusion as under:-
      "Conclusion:
          • Utsav is outsourcing the HSRP blank operation through job         H
948            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 7 S.C.R.


A              work from ROSMERTA. Laser coding as well as security
               features control was executed by Utsav from beginning to till
               date.
               • Utsav Guwahati plant dispatched a total of 5673391 Pcs
               HSRP plates since December 2012 onwards and they are given
B              as under:-
                   V Himachal Pradesh factory with and without laser
                   coding                         ·
                   V Delhi for laser coding and distribution
c                  V All State consortium partners after laser coding
               • Out of a total 5673391 Pcs HSRP plates, 19, 19,550 HSRP
               plates were dis patched in the month of November, 2013 by
               Utsav to various implementing companies while 51830 Pcs
               HSRP is stock at the Guwahati factory ofUtsav."
D
      Petitioner alleges that as per bid document of Mis. Utsav, HSRPs ought
      to have bee11 manufactured at Himachal Pradesh Plant of M/s. Utsav.
      However, the plates were manufactured at an unauthorized unit in Assam
      and thus it is a clear case of sub-contracting of work carried without
      control and supervision ofM/s. Utsav which has been conferred TAC
E     and CoP and a clear case of violation of Rule 50 and Orders of this
      Court emerges.
             16. The petitioner's counsel also relies upon the report of the
      Inquiry Committee ofNCT of Delhi dated 31.01.2014 which reported
      large-scale violations committed by the approved manufacturer in the
 F    NCT of Delhi (i.e., consortium of Mis. Utsav-Technical Partner and
      Mis. Rosmerta-Financial Partner). It is stated that NCT of Delhi had
      also issued show cause notice dated I0.03.2014 to the consortium ofM/
      s. Utsav i.e. Mis. Rosmerta stating that "M/s. Utsav Safety Systems
      Pvt. Ltd. Technical Partner of SPB are not supplying any blank HSR
      Plates after 10.08.2013 and also alleged that uncertified HSRPs are
G
      being procured/supplied/affixed by M/s. Rosmerta Technologies.
             17. Furthermore, the petitioner relies upon the Utsav's letter dated
      17.10.2013 addressed to the Transport Commissioner, Government of
      Delhi wherein M/s. Utsav has admitted that its concessionaire partners
      have supplied uncertified and unauthorized HSRPs. The relevant portion
H
  MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VJJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.                               949
                 [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

of the said letter dated 17.10.2013 addressed to the Transport                   A
Commissioner, Government of Delhi, reads as under:-
      " .. .lt is to bring to your kind notice that Mis. Rosmerta Technologies
      Ltd. which is the other stake-holder, in the SPY has been
      concerned with the purchase of Blank number plates from Mis.
      Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. and the supply embossment and                B
      fixing of the same to the vehicles in the State. It is noteworthy
      that Mis. Rosmerta Technologies Ltd. under the guise of the
      Concession agreement has supplied huge quantities ofHSRP in
      the name of Mis. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. to the Vehicle
      owners of the State without taking Mis. Utsav Safety Systems
      Pvt. Ltd. manufactured HSRP and by resorting to the supply of               c
      uncertified and unauthorized HSRP's. I would like to bring to
      your kind notice that the manufacturing establishment that has
      been laid at Guwahati, Assam by Mis. Rosmerta Technologies
      Limited has not been approved by Automotive Research
      Association of India (hereinafter referred to as 'ARAI'), hence             D
      any supplies of HSRP made from there would be a prima facie
      violation of the Rule 50 and its inherent norms of selection of
      Type Approved Manufacturer for the supplies ofHSRP in any of
      the States of India... "
The counsel averred that on the same line, Mis. Utsav had also issued             E
notice to Mis. Linkpoint Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. stating that under the
guise of Concession Agreement, Mis. Linkpoint Infrastructure had
unauthorisedly manufactured and supplied uncertified number plates in
the respective States and thereby committed material breach of Rule 50
of the CMV Rules and also the Orders passed by this Court. Subsequently,
Mis. Utsav and Mis. Linkpoint Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. by the settlement          F
dated 19.03.2014 have resolved and settled all their disputes and arrived
at final settlement regarding their inter-se disputes.
       18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
bid document the only plant which was approved was Bilaspur, Himachal
Pradesh Plant and there is enough material on record to show that                 G
5725221 blank I-ISR Plates were manufactured and supplied from the
unauthorised and unapproved plant in Assam and there was no approval
granted to the said plant at Assam and the same is in violation of Rule 50
and orders of this Court and such violation is due to lack of respondent's
administrative conviction to abide by the existing statutory norms and           H
950            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 7 S.C.R.


A     the petitioner therefore prayed for initiating contempt proceeding against
      respondents and also inter alia prayed for various directions for strict
      compliance ofHSRP Order 2001.
              19. Per Contra, counsel for the respondents have in response to
      the allegations in the contempt petitions, filed various affidavits denying
B     that there has been any disregard to the orders of th is Court. In the
      affidavit filed onbehalfofrespondents No. I to 4, it is averred that Rule
      50 ofCMV Rules of200 I does not place a specific bar on 'job work' or
      sub-contracting and the same would however be subject to sub-clauses
      (xvii) and (xviii) of Clause 4 of the Motor Vehicles New HSRP Order
      that the manufacturer or the supplier would al I times be in control over
c     all the security features and that he shall not sell any incomplete plate or
      security features to anyone. It is further averred that the complete bar
      on the job work may hinder implementation ofHSRP scheme in a time
      bound manner. ll has been contended that in the process of
       implementation of HSRP Scheme, it may be possible to get the certain
D      items of work executed on 'jobwork' basis without compromising security
      of the process. It is fu11her submitted that the issue of 'outsourcing'
      was examined in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in a
       meeting of the representatives of ARAI and CRRI held on 03.02.2014.
       It was decided that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles (New High
       Security Registration Plates) Order 200 I with its amendments cannot
 E     be interpreted to prevent outsourcing of manufacturing activities to other
      firms when all security features are in control of TAC manufacturer or
       the supplier.
             20. The statutory agency viz., ARAI in its counter affidavit stated
      that Mis. Utsav is outsourcing its work throughjobwork done from Mis.
 F    Rosmerta Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. States have also filed various affidavits
      stating that they have taken sufficient action to comply with the orders
      of this Court to implement HSRP scheme. Many States in their counter
      affidavits have referred to the action taken against Mis. Utsav by issuing
      show cause notices for violation of Ruic 50.
G          21. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
      averments in the counter affidavits and other material on record.
            22. At the outset, it is necessary to note that Mis. Utsav Safety
      Systems Pvt. Ltd. (for short "Mis. Utsav") has got a tender for
      manufacturing HSRPs at least in seven states by entering into Special
 H    Purpose Vehicle (SPY) either with Mis. Linkpoint or with Mis. Rosmerta.
   MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CI-IHIBBER & ORS.                         951
                  [R. BANUMATI-11, J.]

 The details of the contracts awarded to Mis Utsav and the SPVsl              A
 consortium partners are as under:-
   S.No.         State            Details ofSPV/Conso1tium Partners

     i.       Himachal       SPY Mis. Link Utsav Ventures (P) Ltd. (SPY
               Pradesh       Partners Mis. Link Point Infrastructure Pvt.
                             Ltd. and Mis. Utsav Safety Svstems Pvt. Ltd.)    B
     ii.      Haryana        SPY Mis. Link Utsav Regisnation Plates Pvt.
                             Ltd. (SPY Partners Mis. Link Point
                             Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Mis. Utsav Safety
                             Systems Pvt. Ltd.)
     iii.     Uuarakhnnd     SPY Mis. Link Utsav HSRP Pvt. Ltd. (SPY
                             Partners Mis. Link Point lnfmstructure Pvt.
                             Ltd, and Mis. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd.)
                                                                               c
     iv.       Delhi         SPY Mis. Rosmerta HSRP Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
                             (SPY Partners Mis. Rosmerta Technology
                             Ltd. and Mis. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd.)
     V.      And lira        SPY Mis. Link Autotech Pvt. Ltd. (SPY
            Pradesh &        Paitners Mis. Link Point lnfiastructure Pvt.
            Telangana        Ltd. and Mis. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd.)
                                                                              D
     vi.    West Bengal      Consortium Partners Mis. Utsav Safety
                             Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mis. Subba Microsystems
                             Ltd. and Mis. M. S. Associates.
     vii.      Bihar         Consortium Pa1tners Mis. Link Point
                             Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Mis. Utsav Safety
                             Systems Pvt Ltd.).
                                                                               E
  In so far as the State of Madhya Pradesh is concerned, M/s. Utsav is in
  SPY partnership with Mis. Linkpoint. Due to violations of Rule SO plus
  terms and conditions of the contract, the contract awarded to SPY-Ml
  s. Linkpoint lnfrastructur;; Pvt. Ltd. had been cancelled and the matter
· is sub-Judice in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
        23. Before we proceed to consider the merits of the contentions        F
 raised by the petitioner, it is imperative to discuss what are TAC and
 CoP:-
 Type ofApproval Certificate (TAC) and Conformity of Production (CoP):
 Once a person has been declared successful bidder for the manufacturing
 ofl-ISRPs then such bidder has to obtain TAC and CoP from the testing         G
 agency before starting manufacturing. Rule SO of the Central Motor
 Vehicles Rules 1989 provides for form and manner of display of
 registration marks. Rule SO authorizes the testing agency to give TAC to
 individual manufacturer for the manufacture of I-ISRPs. In conformity
 with the specifications prescribed under the rules. At present there are      H
952            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 7 S.C.R.


A     four testing agencies to issue TAC which include the Automative
      Research Association of India (ARAf); Vehicle Research and
      Development Establishment (VRDE); Central Road Research Institute
      (CRRI), New Delhi. The successful bidder for the manufacturing of
      HSR plates after completion of manufacturing of HSR plates to apply·
      for TAC, has to pay the prescribed fee and submit prototype samples of
8
      licensed plates conforming to the specifications under the rules. After
      brief checking of approval of drawings, each manufacturer will have to
      submit prototype samples of the licensed plates conforming to the drawing
      approved by the institute. The testing and evaluation of HSRP samples
      shall be as per the specifications laid down in the gazette notifications.
c     Mis. Utsav was initially issued the TAC on 08.07.2002 by ARAI and
      received the first conformity of the production on 07.08.2003 and the
      same were subsequently renewed.
             24. hi the counter affidavit filed by sixth respondent (ARAI), it is
      stated that there are two stages of manufacturing process-first carried
D     out in a plant/factory of the TAC holder and thereafter the process.es
      like embossing ofregistration allocated by the concerned RTO which is
      to be undertaken in RTO premises. Details of two stages of
      manufacturing and installation process are as under:-
      Processes which are to be carried out in the plant/factory ofTAC holder:
E           • Purchase of Raw material namely reflective sheet, Aluminium
              Plate, Chromium based hologram. hot stamping black foil film
              and non-removable snap lock for fixing plates etc.
            • Lamination ofreflective sheet having blue endorsement oflND
              on the aluminium plate.
F           • Hot Stamping of Hologram on the reflective sheet after
              lamination.
            • Stamping of blank plate.
            • Edge formation of the plate.
G           • Etching unique security laser coding number running serially
              having two allocated alphabets prefixed to the unique number
              as given in TAC.
      Processes which are to be taken in RTO premises:
            • Embossing of registration number al located by RTO along with
H             hot stamping of black foil with blue pigment inscription on the
 MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.                             953
                [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

         number allocated and also on the border of plate.                    A
      • Making of the third sticker on a destructive film having
        hologram, laser coding numbers, name of RTO, engine number,
        chasis number, registration number allocated by RTO for front
        and rear plates.
                                                                               B
      • Fixation of finished HSRP on the vehicle using Snap Lock and
        fixing of third stickeron the wind screen for 4-wheeled vehicles.
       25. From the report of the minutes of the various meetings and
report of :he inspection team, it is seen that M/s. Rosmerta is not a
Technical Partner or a Financial Partner (except in the NCT of Delhi) in
any of the States where Mis. Utsav has got a tender of manufacturing
                                                                               c
HSRPs. As per the HSRP Order of 200 I, HSRPs have to be certified
by the testing agencies. Manufacturing unit of Mis. Rosmerta in the
State of Assam has not been certified by any of the testing agencies. As
per the CoP guidelines, the manufacturer of HSRPs has to inform the
testing agency which had granted the TAC within one month of                   D
commencement of manufacturing and thereafter has to inform after
every fifteen lakhs plates manufactured or two years whichever is earlier.
As noticed earlier, as per the report of the inspecting team dated
29.11.2013, Mis. Rosmerta-Assam Plant had manufactured a total
number of 5725221 blank HSRPs and distributed to consortium partners
                                                                               E
of all States. However, Mis. Rosme1ta has not been granted the CoP
certificate from the testing agency, evidently the HSRPs manufactured
at Mis Rosmerta Assam Plant could not have been verified by the testing
agency.
       26. Mis. Utsav filed IA No.3/14 dated 25.02.2014 stating that
joint venture cons01tium of Mis. Utsav with Mis. Rosmerta in the NCT           F
of Delhi is the approved manufacturer. While Mis. Utsav in consortium
with Mis. Linkpoint (SPY partners) is the approved manufacturer in the
States of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand,
Bihar, Delhi and Andhra Pradesh, in l.A.No.3/14 Mis. Utsav has
highlighted how it has lost control over the manufacturing process, is in      G
violation of CoP, and also manufacture and supply of HSRPs by Mis.
Rosmerta situated in the State of Assam which has not been certified by
any of the testing agencies and that there is clear violation of Rule 50 of
CMV Rules and CoP guidelines. Though, subsequently Mis. Utsav filed
the application to recall the said I.A.No.3114, the averments made in
                                                                               H
954            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] 7 S.C.R.


A     l.A.No.3/14 speak volumes about the actual truth of the Concessionaire
      Agreement between M/s. Utsav Technical Partner on the one hand and
      Mis. Rosme11a and Mis. Linkpoint on the other.
             27. In the light of the above discussion, in our view, there seems
      to be primafacie violation of Rule 50 ofCMV Rules and orders passed
B     by this Court. The question is whether the respondents/officials are to
      be proceeded against for wilful disobedience of the various orders passed
      by this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
      infra, we are not inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the
      respondents. M/s. Utsav has given an undertaking to the effect that in
      future it shall not outsource the blank plate manufacturing as jobwork
c     and that the HSRP scheme will be implemented as per the terms and
      conditions of the contract. The undertaking ofM/s Utsav reads as under:
            • That Utsav is a holder of Type Approval Certificate (TAC)
              and Conformity of Production (CoP) having a manufacturing
              facility as on date at Plot No.3A, Phase IV, Industrial Area,
D             Golemath, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh-17420 I.
            • I hereby state that Utsav shall not outsource the blank plate
              manufacturing (as was being done at Assam till November
              2013) as job work for the purpose of implementation of the
              terms and conditions of the contract. Utsav who holds TAC
E
              Certificate will be manufacturing blank plates at its plant in
              Himachal Pradesh and the implementation of the HSRP
              Scheme will be done by the Concessionaire at the place
              designated by the State transpo11 authorities in accordance with
              the terms and conditions of the contract and the MY Rules/
F             Order.
            • ... .In the event, any such other/additional unit/s of Utsav
              commences manufacturing activity in any other location, due
              process oflaw will be followed and necessary approvals would
              be taken as envisaged under the applicable norms and
G             requirements flowing from Act, Rules, Order etc. and the
              conditions stipulated under respective tenders, as accepted. In
              that eventuality, Utsav may manufacture not only at Himachal
              Pradesh but at any other place duly approved by the competent
              authority/ies. The statement made in Para 4 hereinabove shall
              equally apply to any such manufacturing activity.
H
 MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHil3BER & ORS.                            955
                [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

Having regard to the undertaking filed by M/s. Utsav and considering           A
the passage ohime, we are not inclined to proceed with the contempt
proceedings.
        28. Though, we are not proceeding against the contemnors, it is
open to the respective states to proceed against M/s. Utsav or the
respective SPY for violation, if any, noticed or brought to its notice. Be     B
it noted that in view of the continued non-compliance of Authority's
instructions and statutory violations, the State of Madhya Pradesh has
terminated the Concessionaire Agreement by its Order No.1538 dated
19.06.2014. Mis. Link Utsav Auto Systems Pvt. Ltd. filed W.P. No.3654/
2014 before the High Court and the said termination was quashed by the
High Court by its order dated 05.08.2014 on the ground that M/s. Link
                                                                               c
Utsav Auto Systems Pvt. Ltd. did not get adequate opportunity to explain
its conduct and the Court granted liberty to the State Government to
issue a fresh show cause notice within a period of three months. After
issuing fresh notice dated 29.08.2014 and after affording fresh opportunity
to Mis. Link Utsav Auto Systems Pvt. Ltd., the State of Madhya Pradesh         D
terminated the Concessionaire Agreement by its order dated 17.10.2014.
The Delhi Government also issued show cause notice dated I 0.03.2014
to Mis. Rosmerta HS RP Ventures Pvt. Ltd. for non-compliance/violation
of the statutory scheme and orders of this Court. We make it clear that
it is open to the Delhi Government and other States to proceed against
                                                                               E
the holders of concessionaire agreements in case of any violation of the
statutory scheme and orders of this Court.
        29. In the counter affidavit filed by the DGM on behalf of ARAI,
it has been mentioned that ARAI approves the prototype motor vehicles
and safety critical components thereof, as per the notified Central Motor
Vehicle Rules (CMVR) and standards referred therein. On verification           F
of documents including testing, TAC is granted after compliance of
CMVR is established. Government of India, Mo RT&H vide letter
No.RT-I I 028/5/2002 MVL dated 04.09.2002 issued the Conformity of
Production (CoP) procedure and the aforesaid letter provides for the
checks to be carried out by the test agency during the first CoP and the       G
subsequent CoPs. In the absence of any specific notification on the
subject, this was construed as guidelines for issuing the CoP. The said
letter reads as under:-
The CoP procedure will comprise the following:-
       • The prospective vendors after establishing manufacturing plant        H
956             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 7 S.C.R.


A               in the country shall inform the concerned Testing Agency which
                had granted Type Approval Certificate within one month of
                commencement of manufacturing. The Testing Agency will
                draw samples of the plates from the plant within three months
                of date of Commencement of Production (CoP) and carry out
                all the tests, which were carried out at the Type Approval stage.
B
            • First CoP will be conducted at the manufacturer's plant and
              subsequent CoPs would be done on the basis of samples drawn
              at random from the vendor's premises. Checks as per
              Annexure-1 may be carried out at the first and subsequent
              CoPs.
c           • At the time of CoP all the tests, such as, visual test, status of
              laser branded permanent identification number of the plate,
              vis-a-vis, records of the RTO regarding issue of plates etc.
              shall be carried out, except weathering test which may be
              carried out once in two years. Details of checks to be carried
D             out at the first and subsequent CoPs are at Annexure-1.
            • The CoP frequency shall be 5 lakh number plates or six months
              whichever is earlier.
             30. The main concern of the petitioner is that Mis. Utsav Safety
      Systems Pvt. Ltd. which is holding TAC issued by ARAI has to
E     manufacture the HSRP in its own plant and it cannot give incomplete
      plates or jobwork to other consortium partners namely Mis. Linkpoint
      Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Mis Rosmerta Technologies Ltd. who are
      selling illegal HSRPs in various States. ARAI has no role to play so far
      as activities of Mis. Linkpoint Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Mis. Rosmerta
F     Technologies Ltd. are concerned. ARAI has stated that it has no role to
      play in job work and that M/s. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. shall
      exercise complete control over all security features in its possession and
      shall be responsible for the use of any security feature on registration
      plate in the open market either by himself or by any other person on his
      behalf.
G
             31. In the counter affidavit filed by the Director, CRRI it is stated
      that CRRI is one of the agencies empowered by law to issue Type
      Approval Certificate. Consequent to the issuance of the TAC, the CRRI
      has to undertake the Conformity of Production (CoP) proceedings for
      every TAC holder. This is to ensure that the HSR Plates so manufactured
H     by the TAC holding companies are indeed in conformity with the
  MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. Vl.IAY CHHIBBER & ORS.                              957
                 [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

conditions of the TAC and the HSRP Scheme.                                       A
       32. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India on
05.09.2014, it has been specifically mentioned that the role of the Union
oflndia is limited to notifying the Rules mandating installation ofHSRP
on vehicles, notifying the standards and specifications of HSRP and the
testing agencies which are to test the plates, type approval of vendors          8
based on the above specifications and to notily the date of implementation.
The Union oflndia has modified the Standard and Specifications vide
'The Motor Vehicle (New High Security Registration Plates) Order-
200 I' and has notified the testing agencies also. In the counter affidavit
filed by Union oflndia, it is averred that the implementation of the scheme
in accordance with the rules framed by the Union of India and 'The
                                                                                 c
Motor Vehicles (New High Security Registration Plates) Order, 200 I' is
the responsibility of the States/Union Territories which is being
implemented by the respective States.
       33. Even though Union oflndia has stated that the implementation
of the scheme in accordance with the rules framed by Union oflndia is             D
the responsibility of the States/Union Territories, in our view, the Union
oflndia has to ensure that there is regular check of manufacturing units
which are engaged in the HSRP project by coordinating with the various
States/Union Territories. Likewise, as per the guidelines issued in the
letter dated 04.09.2002, it is for ARAI to check the plates as per                E
Annexure-1 enclosed with the said letter and that it takes stern action as
and when there are violations/deviations.
       34. Though we are not inclined to initiate the contempt proceedings
yet in order to enable the statutory authorities to keep a control over the
implementation of the scheme, it is necessary to issue directions/guidelines      F
for proper implementation of the HSRP Scheme as under:-
       i. The State Governments shall ensure the strict adherence of
          Rule 50 ofCMV Rules and various orders issued by this Com1
          in Writ Petition No. 510 of 2005 and shall ensure that the
          selected manufactures are able to satisfactorily build the requisite    G
          capacity and infrastructure thereby ensuring smooth
          implementation at the grass root level. The State Governments
          shall ensure selection and authorisation only of those TAC
          manufactures who have been financially and technically
          competent to manufacture and supply the requisite number of
          HSRP in the State.                                                      H
958         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] 7 S.C.R.



A     11.   Manufacturing ofHSRP starts with the grant ofTAC and CoP.
            Hence, periodic assessment, review and audit by the testing
            agencies of all the aspects involved in the HSRP product
            specifications, process compliances and operational procedures
            in totality is warranted. The testing agencies shall ensure that
            quality and specifications is not being compromised.
B
      iii. Furthermore, the HSRP contracts should be awarded pursuant
           to a transparent tender process. The factors such as
           topographical and geographical conditions, vehicular population,
           adequate infrastructure, cost of managing logistics, equipments
           and human resources etc. must be considered before accepting
c          any bid and entering into the contract.
      iv. The authorized HRSP manufacturer shall not outsource the
          blank plate manufacturing as job work for the purpose of
          implementation of terms and condition of the Contract signed.
          HSRP Scheme should be done by the Concessionaire at the
D         place designated by the State Transport authorities in
          accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract and
          MY Rules/Order.
      v. The authorized manufacturer shall be permitted set up other/
         additional manufacturing units in accordance with the Acts and
E        Rules. Jn any event, it is directed that any such other/additional
         units ofUtsav commences manufacturing activity in any other
         location, due process of law will be followed and necessary
         approvals would be taken as envisaged under the applicable
         norms and requirement flowing from Act, Rules, Order etc.
F        and the Conditions stipulated under respective Tenders, as
         accepted.
      vi. HSRP manufacturers should carry out all the processes of
          HSRP project in the plant as indicated in the tender documents,
          namely:
G     (a) purchase ofraw materials, such as, reflective sheet, aluminium
          plate, chromium based hologram, hot stamping black foil film
          and non-removable snap lock for fixing plates, etc;
      (b) lamination ofreflective sheet having blue endorsement oflN[
          on the aluminium plate;
H
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.                         959
               [R. BANUMATH!, J.]

   (c)hot stamping of Hologram on the reflective sheet after             A
      lamination;
   (d) stamping of blank plate;
   (e)edge formation of the plate;
   (t) etching unique security laser coding number running serially      B
      having two allocated alphabets prefixed to the unique number
      as given in TAC;
   (g)the selected manufacturers should ensure that every process
      of the work is being done under its control with the help of
      trained workers and not to sub-contract or outsource any part       C
      of the process of the work to forgo security norms.
   Note:- All the above processes ought to be carried out in the
   plant of the manufacturer as indicated in the tender documents.
   vii. The State Government should ensure that successful bidders
        or sub-contractors or other parties do not have control over      D
        the manufacturing processing and fixation of HSRP in any
        manner unless authorized under law. It must be ensured that
        one single person is responsible for manufacturing, affixation
        of seals, imprinting of umbers and affixation of HSRP on
        vehicles.
                                                                          E
   viii.The record must be maintained by the manufacturer of HSRP
       as to the number of plates manufactured and made ready
       everyday alongwith weekly and monthly statements.
   ix. The manufacturing unit must strictly govern and control the
      implementation of the process of production and fixation of         F
      HSRP. All the concerned authorities are directed to look after
      the aforesaid process being adopted for fixation of HSRPs
      and State must report back ifthe violation continues.
   x. The testing agencies along with the team comprising of State
      level officer (not below the rank of RTO) and one expert as         G
      nominated by the Transport Commissioner of the respective
      State shall inspect the unit and certify the manufactured HSRP
      and manufactured HSRP shall leave the factory premises of
      the manufacturer only after being cleared by the testing
      agencies.
                                                                          H
960     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            (2016] 7 S.C.R.


A     xi. The transpo11 officials of the State Government shall ensure
          that manufacturing units are periodically inspected and ensure
          compliance of Rule 50 of the CMV Rules and also the terms
          and conditions of the Contract. Additionally the Central
          Government should form Committees in collaboration with the
          State Governments in order to keep regular check on the
B
          manufacturing units which are engaged in HSRP project. The
          manufacturing units must be periodically inspected by the
          Committee so constituted and report be sent to MoRTH and
          also to the Transport Commissioner of the concerned State
          highlighting the compliance or otherwise of Rule 50 of the CMV
c         Rules, the terms and conditions of the contract and also any
          sho1tcomings noticed during inspection and suggestions by the
          team.
      xii. The Central Government and the State Governments should
           strictly implement HSRP policy in all the States in a time bound
D          manner.
      xiii.The Central Government and the State Governments should
          register complaints regarding the violation and, in case of
          violations, both the Central Government and the State
          Governments should take strict action in accordance with law.
 E    xiv.The Central Government should create a nationwide common
         repository ofVehicular Registration Data for achieving the basic
         objective behind the idea ofHSRP scheme and thereby ensuring
         smooth implementation at the grass root level.
      xv. It is directed that the concerned shall strictly implement the
 F        rules and also orders of this Court in letter and spirit and not
          dilute any standards ofHSRP, voluntarily or otherwise. All the
          authorities must take proactive measures to implement the
          HSRP Order according to the provisions stated.
      xvi.The HSRP process initiated by States for implementation of
 G       the Scheme must be such that even in the case, where parties
         had bid in the capacity of a consortium or a joint venture, the
         State are under obligation in respect of tenders floated by the
         respective states to create a Special Purpose Vehicle which
         would finally enter into a Concession Agreement, but in any
         event the State must ensure that entire responsibility of HSRP
H
  MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CI-IHIBBER & ORS.                           961
                 [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

          project would remain with one entity/SPY which would be               A
          responsible for manufacturing, affixation of seals, imprinting
          of numbers etc. It is directed that Concessionaire would be
          exclusively responsible for the entire process.
       xvii.A specific direction is issued to Additional Commissioner
          (Traffic) and DCP (Traffic) to organize a special drive and           B
          compliance thereto must be recorded.
       xviii.The Central Government and State Government are directed
          to strictly regulate as well as monitor the implementation as
          per the provisions of law including the provisions of Motor
          Vehicles (New High Security Registration Plates) Order, 200 I         c
          and aforesaid directions issued by this Court.
       35. With the above directions and observations, contempt petitions
are disposed of. It will not however, prevent the respective States to
proceed against Mis. Utsav or the respective SPV for the violation of
the terms and conditions of the contract, if any, Rule 50 of the CMV            o
Rules and directions/orders of the respective State Governments.


Devika Gujral                                Contempt petitions disposed of.