Back
T. S. THAKUR, R. K. AGRAWAL, R. BANUMATHI
Maninderjit Singh Bitta – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Chhibber – Respondent
What is the extent of the Union/State obligation to ensure regular checks and enforcement of HSRP compliance under Rule 50 and Court directions? What is the legality and boundaries of outsourcing or job work in the manufacture of High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) and the responsibilities of TAC holders and SPVs? What measures and directions did the Court issue to ensure implementation and compliance of the HSRP scheme across States/UTs?
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
JUDGMENT :
R. Banumathi, J.
The instant contempt petitions have been filed by the petitioner herein highlighting the issue of implementation of Scheme of High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) in disobedience of this Court’s order dated 08.12.2011 reported in (2012) 1 SCC 707 titled Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India & Ors. and order dated 07.02.2012 reported in (2012) 4 SCC 568 titled Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in W.P. No.510 of 2005 and 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.
2. The matter was heard at length on various dates. Having regard to the arguments advanced in extenso, it is necessary to refer to the factual matrix of the case which led to the filing of
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
