Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(SC) 383

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. Kapadia, CJI., K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan & Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Maninderjit Singh Bitta
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
IA Nos. 10 and 11 of 2010 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 510 of 2005 With IA No.12 of 2010 In IA No. 10 of 2010 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 510 of 2005
Decided On : 07 April, 2011

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R.F. Nariman, Senior Advocate, Mr. S. Hari Haran, Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Mr. Vikas Singh, Ms. Taruna Singh, Ms. Charu Mathur, Advocates, with him for the Petitioner(s).
Mr. A. Mariarputham, Advocate General, Mr. T.S. Doabia, Senior Advocate, Ms. Jayshree Anand, Mr. Manjit Singh, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Mr. V. Madhukar, AAG, Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Mr. C.K. Sharma, Ms. Gunwant Dara, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Mr. Yusuf Khan, Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Megha Gaur (for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co.), Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Nupur Kanungo, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Mr. Abhishek Malviya, Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Mr. S. Bhowmick, Mr. S.C. Ghosh, Mr. Naveen Sharma, Mr. B.S. Banthia, Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, Ms. Sarbani Kar, Ms. Debjani Das Purkayastha, Mr. Bidyabrata Acharya, Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Mr. R. Sathish, Mr. Gopal Singh, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Mr. Atul Jha, Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Mr. Arun K. Sinha, Mr. Atul Jha, Mr. D.K. Sinha, Ms. Ekta Singh, Mr. Kuldip Singh, Mr. Vikas Mehta, Mr. T.V. George, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Ms. Vartika Sahay (for M/s. Corporate Law Group), Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Mr. G. Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, Mr. V. Senthil, Ms. Vivekta Singh, Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Mr. Edward Belho, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Vijaya, Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Ms. Asha G. Nair, Mr. Devesh Kumar Devesh, Mr. Milind Kumar, Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Mr. P. Prasanth, Mr. V. Pattabhiram, Mr. G.N. Reddy, Ms. Jayshree Anand, Mr. K.K. Mahalik, Mr. Ajay Pal, Advocates, with them for the Respondent(s).

IMPORTANT POINT
Obedience of orders of the Supreme Court is necessary.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 41(6) r/w Rule 50 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) – Fixing HSRP is statutory duty of the States – Orders passed by Supreme Court – Obedience necessary for preserving integrity of the institution of the Supreme Court – Intentional disobedience of some States in implementation of HSRP number plates viewed seriously – One opportunity given to defaulting States to file affidavit before initiating Contempt proceedings. (Para 14, 15, 16)
       JT 1992 (6) SC 721 : 1994 (6) SCC 752 – Relied upon
       JT 2004 (Suppl. 2) SC 379 : (2004) 5 SCC 364; 2005 (1) SCC 679; (2008) 7 SCC 328 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       In this case the Court reviewed implementation of its orders regarding HSRP.
       Result:
       All applications stand over for six weeks.

ORDER

1. 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 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 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 States had invited tenders in order to implement the scheme.

2. 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 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. 41 of 2003 were referred to a larger Bench of three Judges of this Court by order of reference dated 26th May, 2005 in the case of Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India [JT 2004 (Suppl. 2) SC 379 : 2004 (5) SCC 364], as there was difference of opinion between the learned Members of the Bench dealing with the case. The three Judge Bench finally 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 the tender conditions and also issued certain directions for appropriate implementation of the scheme.

3. The matter did not rest there. Different States did not comply with the Rules, scheme and/or statutory order which resulted 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:

'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 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 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 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 in view.'

4. Despite the above judgments of the Court, most of the 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 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