Back
2012 (1) Supreme 299
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. Kapadia, CJI., A.K. Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Maninderjit Singh Bitta — Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
IA Nos. 10, 16, 17 and 18
In
Writ Petition (Civil ) No.510 of 2005
Decided on : 8-12-2011
1. Andaman & Nicobar Islands (Union Territory) ¯ Time granted upto 31st March 2012
2. Andhra Pradesh ¯ Time granted upto 29th February 2012
3. Arunachal Pradesh – Time granted upto 31st March 2012
4. Assam – Time granted upto 30th April 2012
5. Bihar – Time granted upto 31st March 2012
6. Chandigarh ¯ Time granted upto 31st March 2012
7. Chattisgarh ¯ Time granted upto 30th April 2012
8. Delhi ¯ Time granted upto 31st December 2011
9. Gujarat ¯ Time granted upto 30th April 2012
10. Haryana ¯ Time granted upto 30th April 2012
11. Himachal Pradesh ¯ Time granted upto 15th June 2012
12. Jammu & Kashmir ¯ Time granted upto 31st March 2012
13. Jharkhand ¯ Time granted upto 30th April 2012
14. Kerala ¯ Time granted upto 31st December 2011
15. Lakshdweep (U.T.) ¯ Time granted upto 30th April 2012
16. Madhya Pradesh ¯ Time granted upto 30th April 2012
17. Manipur ¯ Time granted upto 31st December 2011
18. Mizoram ¯ Time granted upto 31st March 2012
19. Nagaland ¯ Time granted upto 15th June 2012
20. Orissa ¯ Time granted upto 30th April 2012
21. Punjab ¯ Time granted upto 30th April 2012
22. Puducherry/Pondicherry ¯ Time granted upto 31st March 2012
23. Sikkin ¯ Time granted upto 31st March 2012
24. Tamil Nadu ¯ Time granted upto 29th February 2012
25. Tripura ¯ Time granted upto 29th February 2012
27. Uttar Pradesh ¯ Time granted upto 29th February 2012
28. Uttrakhand ¯ Time granted upto 29th February 2012
29. West Bengal ¯ Time granted upto 31st January 2012
30. Karnataka, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Goa ¯ Time granted upto 31st December 2012 (To get the interim orders vacated)
31. Union Territories of Daman & Diu and Dadara & Nagar Haveli – (These States were directed to explain why steps have not been taken in furtherance of orders passed by the Court)
(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ¯ Section 109(3) and Motor Vehicles (New High Security Registration Plates) Order-2001 ¯ Implementation of the scheme regulating issuance and fixation of High Security Registration Plates ¯ General Directions ¯ The Supreme Court issued further general directions:¯
(1) Affidavits of compliance and undertakings to comply with the directions of the Court, as contained in different orders of this Court, should be filed within four weeks from 25th November, 2011. The affidavits-cum-undertakings shall be filed by the Secretary (Transport) and the Commissioner (Transport) of respective States and Union Territories. The time schedule specified in this order shall be strictly adhered to. No further time shall be granted by the Court for this purpose.
(2) In the event of default and non-compliance of any of the directions contained in this order by any authority, the Court would be compelled to initiate proceedings against such officer/officers in accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, without any further notice to them.
(3) This matter shall be listed before the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court on 5th January, 2012. The Registrar shall verify and submit a report to this Court as to which of the State/Union Territory and their respective officers have not complied with the directions of this Court as contained in this order. The report of the Registrar shall be submitted and the matter be placed before the Court on 20th January, 2012.
(4) Various matters pending before this Court, wherein challenge has been raised to the tender process commenced and/or finalized by the respective States/Union Territories for implementation of the HSRP scheme, should be listed before one and the same Court. Then alone, the effective implementation of the directions of the Court is possible. Thus, the matter should be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side for appropriate orders at the earliest.
(5) No High Court should pass any interim orders cancelling or staying the tender process in relation to implementation of the scheme.
ORDER
1. This order is in continuation of the orders dated 30th August, 2011 and 13th October, 2011. The directions contained in these orders shall be mutatis mutandis applicable with the directions contained in the present order.
2. Despite the above orders of this Court, majority of the States have not fully implemented the scheme regulating issuance and fixation of High Security Registration Plates (HSRP). From the affidavits filed on behalf of the respective States, it is clear that they have not been vigilant enough to take appropriate steps for initiation and completion of the HSRP scheme and, in any case, not with required expeditiousness. On 25th November, 2011, we heard the learned counsel appearing for different States and perused the affidavits placed on record. However, some of the States have not even been courteous enough to file affidavits of compliance and have orally prayed for extension of time. In these circumstances, it has become necessary for us to deal individually with the case of each State.
Andaman & Nicobar Islands (Union Territory)
3. As per the affidavit, Andaman & Nicobar administration has already finalized and signed the agreement for awarding the contract to the successful bidder on 21st October, 2011 and the work was to be commenced within 30 days of signing of this contract which has not commenced as yet. They prayed for further extension of time to complete the implementation of the scheme. As prayed, we grant period upto 31st March, 2012 for the Union Territory to complete the implementation of the scheme without fail.
Andhra Pradesh
4. It is the case of the State of Andhra Pradesh that it published the notice inviting the tenders on 8th October, 2011 and the due date of the tender bids was 26th November, 2011. The State claims that it has prepared a comprehensive framework to implement the HSRP scheme and authorized Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation to roll out the end to end solution for the project. It has decided to have a competitive bidding process by segregating the tender into different sections i.e. one for manufacturing, another for embossing, hot stamping and printing of HSRP and yet another to supply the same to the Corporation for installation. Again, the process adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh is not only in violation of the directions contained in paragraphs 39 and 40 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India1 [(2005) 1 SCC 679], but is also contrary to the Notification dated 16th September, 2011 which was issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 109 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and called the Motor Vehicles (New High Security Registration Plates) Order, 2001. This Order does not permit the completion of the HSRP scheme in the manner sought to be adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The State was to award the contract but the same has not so far been awarded. In the circumstances afore-noticed, we direct the State of Andhra Pradesh to issue fresh tender, award the contract and commence the implementation of the scheme positively by 29th February, 2012. It has assured this Court that now it would positively abide by the time schedule and do the needful.
Arunachal Pradesh
5. Arunachal Pradesh had invited tenders but all the tenderers were disqualified resulting in the State being compelled to invite fresh tenders. Re-tender process had already been started and the process was to be completed by 18th November, 2011. However, it prayed for three weeks extension to award the contract and sign the agreement with the successful bidder. It is further stated on behalf of the State that the scheme shall be fully implemented in the entire State by 31st March, 2012. By way of a final opportunity, the time, as prayed for, is granted.
Assam
6. State of Assam has also started the process but is yet to complete the formalities and sign the deed of agreement. An inspection of the factories is to be conducted by
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
