Supreme Court of India
S.H. KAPADIA, CJI., A.K. PATNAIK & SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.
Maninderjit Singh Bitta
Versus
Union of India & Others
IA NOS.10, 16, 17 AND 18 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.510 OF 2005
Decided on: 08-12-2011
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 109 - Rule 50 - Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - contract - State Road Transport Corporation - Court, majority of States have not fully implemented scheme regulating issuance and fixation of High Security Registration Plates - From affidavits filed on behalf of respective States it is clear that they have not been vigilant enough to take appropriate steps for initiation and completion of scheme and in any case not with required expeditiousness - November court heard counsel appearing for different States and perused affidavits placed on record - However some of States have not even been courteous enough 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 case of each State –Held, Petitioner and some of States question has been raised before us that contractors have responded to notices for tender in consortium - This is being done primarily for purpose of satisfying condition specialized experience for manufacture and affixation - However after award of contract partner possessing expertise Type Approval Certificate approval consortium may walk out from performance of contract - Circumstance very purpose would stand frustrated - Court find merit in this submission but would refrain from issuing any direction in that behalf at this stage - Concerned State Union Territory to take appropriate decision with reference to facts of given case and in accordance with law Court as contained in its various orders in regard to manufacturing and affixation it is imperative for this Court to direct that will be in fitness of things and even judicial proprietary would demand that no High Court should pass any interim orders cancelling staying tender process in relation to implementation of scheme - While so directing court grant liberty to parties to make mention before this Court after they have instituted their petitions if any before High Court and interim orders have been declined in furtherance to observations - Order accordingly
Judgment
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 India [(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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.