MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 142 · Decided: 07-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.H. KAPADIA, K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, SWATANTER KUMAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 5 S.C.R. 142 
A 
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITIA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
I.A. Nos. 10 and 11 of 2010 
., 
B 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 510 of 2005 & Ors. 
c 
APRIL 07, 2011 
[S.H. KAPADIA, CJI., K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND 
SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 41 (6) rlw r. 50 of MV Rules, 
1989- Issuance of notification under- For implementation of 
a new Scheme regulating issuance and fixation of new High 
Security Registration Plates (HSRP) - Invitation of tenders by 
D various States to implement the Scheme - Writ petition filed 
challenging the power of the Central Government to issue 
such Notification as well as terms and conditions of the tender 
process - Dismissal of writ petition as also the connected 
matters by Supreme Court - Despite the aforesaid directions, 
E non-implementation of the Scheme in its true spiril._by most 
of the States -
Various interim applications filed before 
Supreme Court -
Held: As regards the status of 
implementation of HSRP Scheme in the respective States 
and Union Territories, the States of Meghalaya, Sikkim and 
F Goa have implemented the Scheme, some of the States have 
initiated the process but could not complete it and some have 
not taken any steps in this regard - All those States which 
have invited tenders but have not finalized the same need to 
be cautioned that just taking a step in furtherance to the order 
of the Court cannot be even called substantial compliance 
G much less complete compliance of the same in its true spirit 
and substance - Thus, they are directed to complete the 
process within the stipulated time and ensure implementation 
of HSRP Scheme at the earliest as also file affidavits before 
H 
142 
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITIA v. UNION OF INDIA & 
143 
ORS. 
this Court showing complete compliance - As regards the 
A 
category of States which have not even initiated any process 
for compliance of their statutory duty, it is an intentional 
disobedience of the orders of the Court- Obedience of orders 
of this Court is necessary for preserving the integrity of the 
constitutional institution - It is not only desirable but an 
B 
essential requirement of law - Such course attains greater 
significance since it is in relation to attainment of a public 
purpose and public interest - Thus, the Secretary, Transport! 
Commissioner, State Transport Authority of the defaulting 
States of Delhi, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh directed to be c 
present on the next date of hearing and show cause why 
proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts 
Act, 1971 be not initiated against them, and also comply with 
other directions contained in the said Order - Senior officers 
of the other defaulting States which have not taken any steps 
0 
directed to file a personal affidavit stating the reasons for not 
complying with the said Order - In the event of default; 
proceedings would be initiated against them under the 
provisions of the Contempt of Coutts Act and costs would also 
be imposed, recoverable from the defaulting officers 
E 
personally - Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - r.50 - Contempt 
of Courts Act, 1971. 
Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India 
(2004) 5 SCC 364; Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India 
(2008) 7 SCC 328; Achhan Rizvi (II) v. State of U. P. (1994) 
F 
6 sec 752 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2004) s sec 364 
(2008) 1 sec 328 
(1994) 6 sec 1s2 
Referred to. 
Referred to. 
Referred to. 
Para 2 
Para 3 
Para 14 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: IA Nos.10 and 11 of 
G 
2010 
H 
144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
IN 
8 
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) N0.510 OF 2005. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
I.A. No. 12 in I.A.No. 10. 
In 
WITH 
C 
Writ Petition (C) No. 510 of 2005. 
R.F. Nariman, S. Hari Haran, Pradhuman Gohil, Vikas 
Singh, Taruna Singh, Charu Mathur for the Petitioner. 
A. Mariarputham, Adv. Genl. T.S. Doabia, Jayshree 
D Anand, Manjit Singhvi, V. Madhukar, AAG, S.W.A. Qadri, 
Sunita Sharma, C.K. Sharma, Gunwant Dara, B. Krishna 
Prasad, D.S. Mahra, Anil Katiyar, Aruna Mathur, Yusuf Khan, 
Avneesh Arputham, Megha Gaur (for Arputham, Aruna & Co.), 
Hemantika Wahi, Nupur Kanungo, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. 
E Aristotle, Prabu Ramasubramanian, Krishnanad Pandeya, 
Sanjay R. Hegde, Abhishek Malviya, Radha Shyam Jena, 
Aruneshwar Gupta, Ranjan Mukherjee, S. Bhowmick, S.C. 
Ghosh, Naveen Sharma, B.S. Banthia, Avijit Bhattachajee, 
Sarbani Kar, Debjani Das Purkayashta, Bidyabrata Acharya, 
F K.N.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.