MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 874 · Decided: 07-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 874 
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 510 of 2005) 
FEBRUARY 7, 2012 
[S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER 
KUMAR, JJ.] 
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: 
ss. 41(6) and 109(3) - High Security Registration Plates 
(HSRP) Scheme - Implementation of - Held: Installation of 
HSRP is a statutory command which is not only in the interest 
of the security of State, but also serves a much larger public 
0 interest - Therefore, it is not only desirable, but mandatory, 
for every State Government and Union Territory to comply with 
the statutory provisions/orders of Supreme Court in terms of 
Art. 129 of the Constitution of India - All State Governments 
and Union Territories, therefore, are mandated to fully 
implement the scheme of fixation of HSRP in their entire 
E territories, positively within the time specified - The orders of 
the Court are expected to be implemented without default and 
with a sense of urgency - Further, directions issued as regards 
costs for non-compliance with the orders of the Court - As 
regards unwarranted conduct and wilful disobedience of 
F orders of the Court by the State concerned, notice to issue 
as directed in the judgment - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 
129 - Contempt of Court - Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - r.5 -
Costs. 
G 
In the case of Association of Registration Plates' the 
challenge made to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles 
Rules, 1989 the statutory order of the Central Government 
and the terms and conditions of the tender process with 
1. 
2004 (6) suppl. scR 496 = 2oos (1) sec 679. 
H 
874 
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. UNION OF INDIA & 
875 
ORS. 
respect to implementation cf the High Security A 
Registration Plates (HSRP) Scheme was rejected by the 
Supreme Court. The Court also issued certain directions 
for appropriate implementation of the Scheme. However, 
persistent default and non-compliance by different State 
Governments and Union territories with regard to 
B 
implementation of the scheme and the orders passed by 
the Supreme Court resulted in filing of the instant writ 
petition. The Court passed orders on 30.8.2011, 
13.10.2011 and 8.12.2011, directing the defaulter State 
Governments and Union territories to implement HSRP c 
Scheme within the specific time frame and file affidavits 
and undertakings. Non-Compliance of the said orders led 
to filing of contempt petitions and IAs. Despite specific 
orders of the Court, some of the State Governments and 
Union Territories failed to file the requisite affidavits and 
D 
undertakings. 
Disposing of Writ Petition No. 510 of 2005, IAs and 
Contempt Petitions filed therein, and remitting the other 
matters back, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Installation of HSRP is a statutory 
command which is not only in the interest of the security 
E 
of State, but also serves a much larger public interest. 
Therefore, it is not only desirable, but mandatory, for 
every State to comply with the statutory provisions/ 
F 
orders of this Court in terms of Art 129 of the Constitution 
of India, 1950. All states, therefore, are mandated to fully 
implement the scheme of fixation of HSRP in their entire 
State, positively within the time specified by 30.4.2012 in 
relation to new vehicles, and 15.6.2012 for old vehicles. 
G 
[para 11 (c)] [885-H; 886-A-C) 
1.2 The States of Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, 
l\llizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Uttarakhand and Union 
Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands have, by and 
large, implemented the scheme and have commenced the 
H 
876 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012] 1 S.C.R. 
A program for fixation of HSRPs in their respective States. 
8 
The Court appreciates the effort put by these states and 
would direct that they should complete the entire 
program in all respects before 30-4-2012. [para 10] [885-
8-C] 
1.3 It is emphasized that the Court's time is spent on 
these cases, that too, at the cost of regular cases 
pending before it. The orders of the Court are expected 
to be implemented without default and with a sense of 
urgency. In the interest of justice and by way of last 
C opportunity, the period for filing of the affidavits and/or 
undertakings is extended by two weeks, subject to 
payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs by each State 
concerned. Costs for non-compliance with the directions 
of this Court, shall be paid by the State Governments at 
D the first instance. The Court is of the considered view that 
the instant cases are not suc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.