Back
2011 Supreme(Raj) 313
2011(2) CCR 1054 (SC)
(Supreme Court)
Maninderjit Singh Bitta Vs. Union of India (Kapadia, CJI.)
HON'BLE S.H. KAPADIA, CJI.
HON'BLE K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
HON'BLE SWATANTER KUMAR, J.
Maninderjit Singh Bitta
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
IA Nos.10 & 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 07.04.2011
R.F. Nariman, Sr. Advocate, S. Hari Haran, Pradhuman Gohil, Vikas Singh, Ms. Taruna Singh, Ms. Charu Mathur, Advocates, with him, for Petitioner(s);
A. Mariarputham, Advocate General, T.S. Doabia, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Jayshree Anand, Manjit Singh, Dr. Manish Singhvi, V. Madhukar, AAG, S.W.A. Qadri, Ms. Sunita Sharma, C.K. Sharma, Ms. Gunwant Dara, B. Krishna Prasad, D.S. Mahra, Anil Katiyar, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Yusuf Khan, Avneesh Arptham, Ms. Megha Gaur (for M/s. Arputham, Mr. Aruna and Co.), Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Nupur Kanungo, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabu Ramasubramanian, Krishnanand Pandeya, Sanjay R. Hegde, Abhishek Malviya, Radha Shyam Jena, Aruneshwar Gupta, Ranjan Mukherjee, S. Bhowmick, S.C. Ghosh, Naveen Sharma, B.S. Banthia, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Ms. Sarbani Kar, Ms. Debjani Das Purkayastha, Bidyabrata Acharya, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Chandan Kumar, Rituraj Biswas, Atul Jha, Rajesh Srivastava, Ramesh Babu M.R., Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Arun K. Sinha, Atul Jha, D.K. Sinha, Ms. Ekta Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Vikas Mehta, T.V. George, Ms. a. Subhashini, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Ms. Vertika Sahay (for M/s. Corporate Law Group), Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Balaji Srinivasan, Anil Shrivastav, Rituraj Biswas, Naresh K. Sharma, G. Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, V. Senthil, Ms. Viveka Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Edward Belho, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Vijaya, Balaji Srinivasan, Sanjay Kharda, ms. Asha G. Nair, Devesh Kumar Devesh, Milind Kumar, T. Harish Kumar, P. Prasanth, V. Pattabhiram, G.N. Reddy, Ms. Jayshree Anand, K.K. Mahalik, Ajay Pal, Advocates, with them, for Respondents
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec. 41(6) and 109(3) with Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rule 50 (As amended) — Supply and Fixation of new High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) — Notification for implementation of the scheme — States fail to implement the directions given by Apex Court — Such States are further directed immediate compliance. (Paras 15 to 17)
Petition disposed of.
eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 41¼6½ vkSj 109¼3½ lkFk esa eksVj ;ku fu;e 1989] fu;e 50 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr½ & Ukwru mPp lqj{kk iaft;u IysV~l ¼,p,lvkjih½ dh vkiwfrZ ,oa fLFkjhdj.k & bl ;kstuk dks ykxw djus gsrq vf/klwpuk & loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa dks ykxw djus esa jkT;ksa dh foQyrk & ,sls jkT;ksa dks vkxs vkSj funsZ'k fn;s tkrs gS fd os mudh vfoyEc vuqikyuk djsaA ¼in la[;k 15 ls 17½
;kfpdk fuLrkfjr dhA
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 vs. Union of India ((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 vs. 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 (sicin) 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 discretion given
