# MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJA Y CHHIBBER & ORS

- **Citation:** [2016] 7 S.C.R. 934
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-11-29
- **Bench:** T.S. Thakur, R.K. Agrawal, R. Banumathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/maninderjit-singh-bitta-v-vija-y-chhibber-ors-31655
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

Contempt of Courts Act: Contempt petition filed highlighting
issue of impleme111ation of the High Security Registration Plates
(HSRP) scheme in disobedience of Supreme Court :S orders -
Allegation that the respondents-co/1/enmors failed lo implement the
HSRP scheme in its true spirit and did not ensure the implementation
of the orders of Supreme Court and failed to discharge the statutory
duty imposed upon them by law by not taking any appropriate action
against Mis Utsav and its consortium par111ers for violating the terms
of tender conditions and directions of Supreme Court - Held: As
per the Supreme Court's order dated 8. 12.2011, sub-contracts were
not permitted for manufacture of HSRP - Mis Utsav had outsourced
the work to an agency - Prima facie there was violation of 1:50 of
CMV Rules - Mis. Utsav gave an undertaking to the effect that in
fi1ture it shall not outsource the blank plate manufacturing as
;obwork and that the HSRP scheme will be implemented as per the
terms and conditions of the co/1/ract - Jn view of the undertaking
filed by Mis. Utsav and the passage of time, the contempt proceedings
are 1101 proceeded - Howeve1: the respectfre Slates given liberty to
proceed against 1\1ls. Utsav or the respective SPVfor violatio11, if
an;-: noticed or brought to its notice - DirectionslGuideli11es issued
for proper i111ple111entatio11 of HSRP scheme - Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - r.50.
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989: dO - Type of Approval
Certificate (TAC) and Conformity of Production (CoP) - Meaning
of
Disposing of the contempt petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. Petitioner alleges that though M/s Utsav has
informed ARAI (testing agency) only about the existence of .two
H
manufacturing plants i.e. Himachal Pradesh and Delhi, Blank High
934
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.
Security Plates are manufactured by Mis. Utsav Safety Systems
Pvt. Ltd. at a plant in Assam by outsourcing the work to M/s
Rosmerta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The *Order dated 08.12.2011
does not permit sub-contracts to be awarded by the contractor to
whom the contract for manufacturing and fixation of HSRP is
awarded a11d accordingly cognizance of the contempt petition is
taken. [Para 14] (946-G-H; 947-A]
2.
Mis. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. has got a tender
for manufacturing HSRPs at least in seven states by entering
into Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) either with Mis. Linkpoint or
with Mis. Rosmerta. [Para 22] [950-H]
3. Type of Approval Certificate (TAC) and Conformity of
Production (CoP): Once a person has been declared successful
bidder for the manufacturing of HSRPs then such bidder has to
obtain TAC and CoP from the testing agency before starting
manufacturing. Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules
1989 provides for form and manner of display of registration
marks. Rule 50 authorizes the testing agency to give TAC to
individual manufacturer for the manufacture of HSRPs. At
present, there are four testing agencies to issue TAC which include
the Automative Research Association of India (ARAI); Vehicle
Research and Development Establishment (VRDE); Central Road
Research Institute (CRRI), New Delhi. The successful bidder
for the manufacturing of HSR plates after completion of
manufacturini; of HSR plates to apply for TAC, has to pay the
prescribed fee and submit prototype samples of licensed plates
conforming to the specifications under the rules. After brief
checking of approval of drawings, each manufacturer will have to
submit prototype samples of the licensed plates conforming to
the drawing approved by the institute. The testing and evaluation
of HSRP samples shall be as per the specifications laid down in
the gazette notifications. [Para 23] (951-G-H; 952-A-C]
4. From the report of the minutes of the various meetings
and report of the inspection team, it is seen that Mis. Rosmerta
is not a Technical Partner or a Financial Partner (except in the
NCT of Delhi) in any of the States where M/s.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,909 of 64,068. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39909 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 934
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA
v.
VIJA Y CHHIBBER & ORS.
(Contempt Petition (C) No. 483 OF 2013)
JULY 13,2016
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, R.K. AGRAWAL AND
R. BANUMATHI, JJ.j
Contempt of Courts Act: Contempt petition filed highlighting
issue of impleme111ation of the High Security Registration Plates
(HSRP) scheme in disobedience of Supreme Court :S orders -
Allegation that the respondents-co/1/enmors failed lo implement the
HSRP scheme in its true spirit and did not ensure the implementation
of the orders of Supreme Court and failed to discharge the statutory
duty imposed upon them by law by not taking any appropriate action
against Mis Utsav and its consortium par111ers for violating the terms
of tender conditions and directions of Supreme Court - Held: As
per the Supreme Court's order dated 8. 12.2011, sub-contracts were
not permitted for manufacture of HSRP - Mis Utsav had outsourced
the work to an agency - Prima facie there was violation of 1:50 of
CMV Rules - Mis. Utsav gave an undertaking to the effect that in
fi1ture it shall not outsource the blank plate manufacturing as
;obwork and that the HSRP scheme will be implemented as per the
terms and conditions of the co/1/ract - Jn view of the undertaking
filed by Mis. Utsav and the passage of time, the contempt proceedings
are 1101 proceeded - Howeve1: the respectfre Slates given liberty to
proceed against 1\1ls. Utsav or the respective SPVfor violatio11, if
an;-: noticed or brought to its notice - DirectionslGuideli11es issued
for proper i111ple111entatio11 of HSRP scheme - Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - r.50.
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989: dO - Type of Approval
Certificate (TAC) and Conformity of Production (CoP) - Meaning
of
Disposing of the contempt petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. Petitioner alleges that though M/s Utsav has
informed ARAI (testing agency) only about the existence of .two
H
manufacturing plants i.e. Himachal Pradesh and Delhi, Blank High
934
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.
Security Plates are manufactured by Mis. Utsav Safety Systems
Pvt. Ltd. at a plant in Assam by outsourcing the work to M/s
Rosmerta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The *Order dated 08.12.2011
does not permit sub-contracts to be awarded by the contractor to
whom the contract for manufacturing and fixation of HSRP is
awarded a11d accordingly cognizance of the contempt petition is
taken. [Para 14] (946-G-H; 947-A]
2.
Mis. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. has got a tender
for manufacturing HSRPs at least in seven states by entering
into Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) either with Mis. Linkpoint or
with Mis. Rosmerta. [Para 22] [950-H]
3. Type of Approval Certificate (TAC) and Conformity of
Production (CoP): Once a person has been declared successful
bidder for the manufacturing of HSRPs then such bidder has to
obtain TAC and CoP from the testing agency before starting
manufacturing. Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules
1989 provides for form and manner of display of registration
marks. Rule 50 authorizes the testing agency to give TAC to
individual manufacturer for the manufacture of HSRPs. At
present, there are four testing agencies to issue TAC which include
the Automative Research Association of India (ARAI); Vehicle
Research and Development Establishment (VRDE); Central Road
Research Institute (CRRI), New Delhi. The successful bidder
for the manufacturing of HSR plates after completion of
manufacturini; of HSR plates to apply for TAC, has to pay the
prescribed fee and submit prototype samples of licensed plates
conforming to the specifications under the rules. After brief
checking of approval of drawings, each manufacturer will have to
submit prototype samples of the licensed plates conforming to
the drawing approved by the institute. The testing and evaluation
of HSRP samples shall be as per the specifications laid down in
the gazette notifications. [Para 23] (951-G-H; 952-A-C]
4. From the report of the minutes of the various meetings
and report of the inspection team, it is seen that Mis. Rosmerta
is not a Technical Partner or a Financial Partner (except in the
NCT of Delhi) in any of the States where M/s. Utsav has got a
tender of manufacturing HSRPs. As per the HSRP Order of2001,
HSRPs have to be certified by the testing agencies. Manufacturing
935
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
936
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
unit of Mis. Rosmerta in the State of Assam has not been certified
by any of the testing agencies. As per the CoP guidelines, the
manufacturer of HSRPs has to inform the testing agency which
had granted the TAC within one month of commencement of
manufacturing and thereafter has to inform after every fifteen
lakhs plates manufactured or two years whichever is earlier. As
per the report of the inspecting team dated 29.11.2013, Mis.
Rosmerta-Assam Plant had manufactured a total number of
5725221 blank HSRPs and distributed to consortium partners of
all States. However, Mis. Rosmerta has not been granted the
CoP certificate from the testing agency, evidently the HSRPs
manufactured at Mis Rosmerta Assam Plant could not have been
verified by the testing agency. [Para 25) (953-C-E)
5.
There seems to be prima facie violation of Rule 50 of
CMV Rules and orders passed by this Court. The question is
whether the respondents/officials are to be proceeded against
for wilful disobedience of the various orders passed by this Court.
Mis. Utsav has given an undertaking to the effect that in future it
shall not outsource the blank plate manufacturing as jobwork and
that the HSRP scheme will be implemented as per the terms and
conditions of the contract. In view of the undertaking filed by Ml
s. Utsav and the passage of time, the contempt proceedings are
not proceeded. However, it is open to the respective states to
proceed against M/s. Utsav or the respective SPV for violation,
if any, noticed or brought to its notice. In view of the continued
non-compliance of Authority's instructions and statutory
violations, the State of Madhya Pradesh has terminated the
Concessionaire Agreement. The Delhi Government also issued
show cause notice dated 10.03.2014 to Mis. Rosmerta HSRP
Ventures Pvt. Ltd. for non-compliance/violation of the statutory
scheme and orders of this Court. It is open to the Delhi
Government and other States to proceed against the holders of
concessionaire agreements in case of any violation of the statutory
scheme and orders of this Court. [Paras 27, 28] (954-B-C; 955A-B, D-E]
6.
The main concern of the petitioner is that Mis. Utsav
Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. which is holding TAC issued by ARAI
has to manufacture the HSRP in its own plant and it cannot give
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.
incomplete plates or jobwork to other consortium partners namely
M/s. Linkpoint Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Rosmerta
Technologies Ltd. who are selling illegal HSRPs in various States.
ARAI has no role to play so far as activities of M/s. Linkpoint
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Mis. Rosmerta Technologies Ltd.
are concerned. ARAI has stated that it has no role to play in job
work and that Mis. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. shall exercise
complete control over all security features in its possession and
shall be responsible for the use of any security feature on
registration plate in the open market either by himself or by any
other person on his behalf. In order to enable the statutory
authorities to keep a control over the implementation of the
scheme, directions/guidelines are issued for proper
implementation of the HSRP Scheme [Paras 30, 34) [956-E-G;
957-F)
Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India and Ors.
(2012) 1 SCC 707; Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union
of India and Ors. 2012 (4) SCC 568 : 2012 (1) SCR
874; Mis Rosemerta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (1)
sec 707 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
c2912) 1 sec 101
referred to
Para 1
2oq (1) SCR 874
referred to
Paras 1, 10
2012 {1) SCC 707
referred to
Para 10
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (C) No.
483 of2013.in W. P. (C) No. 510 of2005
937
A
B
c
D
E
WITH
F
Contempt Petition (C) No. 3 of 2015 in W. P. (C) No. 510 of
2005.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.
Maninder Singh, ASG, Arvind Verma, Paras Kuhad, Sanjiv Sen,
Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advs., Suiyanarana Singh, AAG, Surain Uppal, Hari haran,
Ms. Charu Mathur, Ajay Sharma, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Gunwant
Dara, Zaid Ali, Ms. Sunita Sharma, D. S. Mahra, Piyush Kumar, Ms.
Vanshaja Shukla, Aditya Narayan Singh, Samir Ali Khan, C. D. Singh,
Darpan Bhuyan, Anip Sachthey, Saakaar Sardana, Ms. Shagun Matta,
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, S. S. Shamsheiy, Amit Sharma, Sandeep Singh,
G
H
938
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 7 S.C.R.
Milind Kumar, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Ms. Bina
Madhavan, Kun al Cheema, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, A. P. Mayee, Jayesh
Gaurav, Ratan Chudhary, Rajesh K. Singh, Sanjay K. Vesen, Saurabh
Ajay Gupta, Saurabh Singhal, Sunil Fernandes, Raghav Chadha, R. N.
Karanjawala, Dabmalya Banerjee, Jasmeet Singh, Ms. Jyotika Jain, Ms.
Jaimet Saran, Ms. Tanya Pujji, Pradeep Bakshi, Ms. Jaya Khanna, Ms.
Ranjeeta Rohtagi, Ms. Manik Karaanjawalaa, (For M/s. Karanjawala
& Co.), Ankur Mittal, Ranjan Mukherjee, S. C. Ghosh, Sumit Goel, (For
M/s. Parekh & Co.), G. N. Reddy, Bala Shivudu, Ms. N. Shoba, Sri
Ram J. Thalapathy, V. Adhimoolam, Shilp Vi nod, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia,
Mukesh Verma, Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Anil Kumr, Anurag Gupta, A
Venayagam Balan, Praveen Chaturvedi, Rudreshwar Singh, Samir Ali
Khan, Ad vs., with him for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Com1 was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J. I. 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 repo11ed in (2012) 1 SCC 707
titled Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India & Ors. and order
dated 07.02.2012 rep011ed in (2012)4 SCC 568 titled Ma11inde1jit Singh
Bit/a 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 necessa1y to refer to the
factual matrix of the case which led to the filing of these contempt
petitions:- After the terrorist attack on the Parliament in 2002, urgency
was felt to check usage of motor vehicles in terrorists' activities.
Therefore, the Central Government on the recommendation of its
Technical Committee devised the scheme of HSRP, so as to ensure
public safety, security and to curb the increasing menace of vehicle theft;;
and their usage in commission of crimes like murder, dacoity, kidnapping
etc. With this avowed object, Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989 (for brevity 'CMV Rules') which deals with "Form and
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VJ.JAY CHHIBBER & ORS.
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
manner of display of registration marks on the motor vehicles" was
amended by the Central Government in exercise of its rule making power
under Section 64 of the MV Rules. The amended scheme of rule 50
substituted the erstwhile system where the registration number was given
by the RTO and the ordinary registration plates obtained from the open
market were installed on the vehicles. Rule 50 was amended to ensure
the technical competence of the prospective manufacturers, controlled
issuance of registration plates and a manufacturer can manufacture the
said plates only after it has got Type Approved Certificate (TAC) from
one of the autonomous certifying agencies. Supply of the plates to the
vehicular users can be made only after the grant of certificate of
Conformity of Production (CoP).
3. The Government of India on 28.03 .200 I issued a notification
und~r Section 41(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the
Act") read with Rule 50 of the MY· Rules for implementation of the
provisions of the Act in terms of sub-Section (3) of Section I 09 of the
Act. The Central Government issued an order dated 22.08.2001 which
deals with various facets of manufacture, supply and fixation of new
high security registration plates. The Central Government also issued a
notification dated 16. I 0.2001 for further implementation of the said order
and HSRP scheme. In order to implement the scheme, various States
also invited tenders for manufacture and supply of HSRP.
4. A Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No.41 of2003 was tiled in this
Comi by the Association of Registration Plates, challenging the Central
Government's power to issue such notification as well as the terms and
conditions of the tender process. In addition to the aforesaid writ petition,
various other writ petitions were filed before the different High Cou1is,
raising the same challenge and those writ petitions came to be transferred
to this Court. By the Judgment reported in (2005) I SCC 679 titled
Association of Registration Plates vs. Union of India & Ors., this
Court dismissed the Writ Petition(C) No. 41 of2003 and other connected
matters, and upheld the validity of rule 50 as well as tender conditions.
While doing so, this Court also issued ce1iain directions for appropriate
implementation of the scheme. The relevant para (3 I) reads as under:-
"31. Justifying the selection ofa single manufacturer for a region
or an entire State, to ensure security considerations, the following
factors have been highlighted as subserving the public interest:
939
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
940
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
I. That it would not be possible to implement the scheme since
the scheme provides that the approved manufacturer would
use the premises .of the State RTO and lay down V-Sat links
so that the entire State is networked on a common platform.
2. It would be impossible for the State to provide all the TACholders space and infrastructure in the RTO premises.
3. [t would be difficult for the State to identify the source of
any counterfeiting in case there are multiple manufacturers.
This would severely compromise the security considerations
involved in the scheme.
4. Different manufacturers would lead to variations in price
between different manufacturers.
5. The State is at a disadvantage since all the manufacturers
would prefer to concentrate on supplying only in Kolkata and
would not go to the other far-flung RTOs where he would not
recover the returns on his investment.
6. rn case more than one manufacturer operates within the
State, it will lead to discrepancy and non-uniformity in price
structure prevailing in different regions.
7. Difficulty in assimilation of data from more than one
manufacturer would lead to disaggregated and confusing
database signals. Such sensitive and security-related business
must be governed by uniform database management processes
and unified standardised coding practices.
8. Different manufacturers would mean that there would be
variation in quality of the material and in terms of workmanship.
9. Possible duplication of registration plates due to competition
between manufacturers of different regions and lack of
aggregated security-controlled database management systems.
I 0. Non-conformity of data of different manufacturers would
lead to confusion and integration of data from the State RTOs.
11. Difficulty in fixing up the answerability on any one
manufacturer for not following the prescribed procedure.
12. Confidentiality of the public database would be severely
compromised.
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.
941
[R. BANUMATHI, J.)
13. Provision of training of RTO personnel by each
A
manufacturer would be a logistic nightmare and would lead to
confusion and further lead to the system being compromised
severely.
14. It is also important to note that each registration plate has
a unique number, and consequently, all the RTOs are required
B
to be electronically connected to each other; ifthe vendors are
allowed to proliferate, this connection would not be possible,
and would lead to complete chaos."
5. It was observed that none of the tender conditions were arbitrary
and discriminatory and in para ( 40), it was held as under:-
C
"40. Selecting one manufacturer through a process of open
competition is not creation of any monopoly, as contended, in
violation of Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution read with clause
(6) of the said article. As is sought to be pointed out, the
implementation involves large network of operations of highly
D
sophisticated materials. The manufacturer has to have embossing
stations within the premises of the RTO. He has to maintain the
data of each plate which he would be getting from his main unit.
It has to be cross-checked by the RTO data. There has to be a
server in the RTO's office which is linked with all RTOs in each
State and thereon linked to the whole nation. Maintenance of the
E
record by one and supervision over its activity would be simpler
for the State if there is one manufacturer instead of multimanufacturers as suppliers. The actual operation of the scheme
through the RTOs in their premises would get complicated and
confused if multi-manufacturers are involved. That would also
seriously impair the high security concept in affixation of new
plates on the vehicles. If there is a single manufacturer he can be
forced to go and serve rural areas with thin vehicular population
and less volume of business. Multi-manufacturers might concentrate
only on urban areas with higher vehicular population."
6. After the decision in Association of Registration Plates
(supra}, the petitioner herein being aggrieved with the non-implementation
ofHSRP scheme in its true letter and spirit, launched the second round
of litigation by filing Writ Petition (C) No.510 of 2005, wherein, this
Court passed various orders dated 08.05.2008, 05.05.2009, 07.04.2011,
30.08.2011, 13.10.2011, 08.12.2011 and 07 .02.2012, so as to ensure the
F
G
H
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
A
integrity and implementation of the scheme and gave various directions
to the States and manufacturers. This Court vi de Order dated 08.05.2008
reported in (2008) 7 sec 328 observed as under:
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
" ... we feel it would be in the interest ofall concerned ifthe States
and the Union Territories take definite decision as to whether
there is need for giving effect to the amended Rule 50 and the
Scheme ofHSRP and the modalities to be followed."
7. Despite the above order of this Court, most of the States have
failed to implement the scheme in its true spirit. This resulted in filing of
I.A. No.5 in Writ Petition (C) No.510 of 2005 wherein the applicant
prayed for a clarification of order dated 08.05 .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 the Order
dated 05.05.2009, this Court held thatthere is no discretion given to the
States/Union Territories in implementation of the amended rules.
8. Further, by an order dated 07.04.2011 of this Court, reported in
(2011) 11 SCC 315, passed in I.A Nos. I 0-11 of2010, wherein the States
sought extension of time for implementation of the HSRP scheme, this
Court took serious view of the matter that there are certain States which
have not even started the process of implementing the HSRP Scheme
and directed such States to file affidavits explaining why contempt
proceedings should not be initiated. It was observed by this Court that
despite tenders being issued long back, no further step was taken.
9. Thereafter, vi de Order dated 30.08.2011 reported in (2011) 14
SCC 273, this Comt again took the serious view of the non-implementation
of HSRP scheme. The Court observed that:-
" ... We regretfully note that the situation in the present case is the
converse of compliance. There is no State in the entire country
which has successfully, in accordance with the statutory provisions
and scheme, as approved by this Court, implemented the scheme
in its entirety ... "
10. Vide Order dated 13.10.2011 reported in (2012) I SCC 273
titled Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India And Ors., this Court
again noted the disobedience of earlier order of this Court by the State
ofHaryana and punished them for contempt, imposing a fine ofRs.2,000/-
each on those who were responsible for disobedience of this Court's
order and exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- on the State. Vi<le Order dated
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
08.12.2011 reported in (2012) I SCC 707 titled Maninderjit Singh Bitta
vs. Union of India And Ors., this Court referred to the affidavits filed
by the various States and in order to ensure proper implementation of
the HSRP Scheme, gave general directions in para (53). It is apposite
to refer to the relevant direction in para (53 .5) which reads as under:-
"5. On behalfofthe petitioner and some of the States, a question
has been raised before us that contractors have responded to the
notices for tender in consortium. This is being done primarily for
the purpose of satisfying the condition of specialised experience
for manufacture and affixation of HSRP. However, after award
of the contract, the partner possessing expertise (Type Approval
Certificate, approval, etc.) in the consortium may walk out from
the performance of the contract. ln this circumstance, the very
purpose would stand frustrated. We find merit in this submission
but would refrain from issuing any direction in that behalf, at this
stage. It will be for the State/Union Territory concerned to take
appropriate decision with reference to the facts of a given case
and in accordance with law. Primafacie, it appears to us that it
would be in the interest of all concerned that all the members of
the consortium including the member possessing the expertise
should continue as such till the performance of the contract."
11. By the aforesaid order dated 08.12.2011 in paras (4) to (6),
this Court has also set aside the approach adopted by the State of Andlua
Pradesh in tender proceedings and directed the State of Andhra Pradesh
to issue fresh tender, award the contract and commence implementation
of the HSRP Scheme positively by 29.02.2012. Paras (4) to (6) of Order
dated 08.12.2011 read as under:-
"4. It is the case of the State of Andhra Pradesh that it published
the notice inviting the tenders on 8-10-2011 and the due date of
the tender bids was 26-11-2011. The State claims that it has
prepared a comprehensive framework to implement the HSRP
scheme and authorised Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation to roll out the end to end solution for the project. It
has decided to have a competitive bidding process by segregating
the tender into different sections i.e. one for manufacturing, another
for embossing, hot stamping and printing of HSRP and yet another
to supply the same to the Corporation for installation.
943
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
944
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
5. Again, the process adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh is
not only in violation of the directions contained in paras 39 and 40
of the judgment of this Court in Assn. of Registration Plates J(
Union of India but is also contrary to the Notification dated
16.09.2011 which was issued under sub-section (3) of Section
I 09 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and called the Motor Vehicles
(New High Security Registration Plates) Order, 200 I. This Order
does not permit the completion of the HSRP scheme in the manner
sought to be adopted by the State of Andlua Pradesh. The State
was to award the contract but the same has not so far been
awarded.
6. In the circumstances aforementioned, we direct the State of
Andhra Pradesh to issue fresh tender, award the contract and
commence the implementation of the scheme positively by
29.02.2012. It has assured this Court that now it would positively
abide by the time schedule and do the needful."
12. In the said order the approach adopted by the Government of
NCT of Delhi was commented upon and this Court observed that the
procedure adopted by them, is not in conformity with the judgments of
this Court. The directions relating to the Government ofNCT of Delhi in
paras (19) and (20) read as under:-
"19. Be that as it may, to some extent, the procedure adopted by
the Delhi Government is not in conformity with the judgments of
this Court. From the documents now filed on record, it appears
that DIMTS has reserved onto itself the power to select more
than one vendor for the project. It is also stipulated in the draft
agreement that the supplier of the plate shall notify the purchaser
in writing of all sub-contracts awarded under the contract. We
make it clear that neither Rule SO of the Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989 (for short "the Rules"), the Motor Vehicles (New High
Security Registration Plates) Order, 2001 nor the judgments of
this Court pennit sub-contracts to be awarded by the contractor
to whom the award for manufacture and fixation of HSRP is
awarded.
20. Furthermore, in their affidavit dated 26-11-2011 it has been
stated that DIMTS is also taking other steps and it has divided the
implementation process into two parts: Firstly, procurement of
H
blank HSRP conftnning to Rule SO of the Rules and personalisation
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
of plates by embossing, hot stamping of number plates, quality
checking, printing of third number plate, set matching, dispatch,
transportation and installation of HSRP. Secondly, it is not
pennissible to bifurcate the process under different heads or in
parts. It is a mandatory requirement that one person should
exclusively be responsible for the entire process in the interest of
security. Thus, we make it clear that DIMTS, when it is getting
the HSRP manufactured from the contractor, such manufacture
should be firstly from a single contractor and secondly it should,
without fail, be under the direct supervision and control of DIM TS.
They should not let the sub-contractors or other parties to have
control over the manufacturing processing and fixation of HSRP
in any manner, whatsoever. They should ensure that one single
person is responsible for manufacturing, affixation of seals,
imprinting ofnumbers and affixation ofHSRP on the vehicles in
the NCT of Delhi."
13. Finally, vide an Order dated 07.02.2012 reported in (2012) 4
SCC 568 titled Maninde1jit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India And Ors.,
this Court disposed of the W.P.(C) 510/2005 by sending the files to
respective High Courts to take action as per law and in para ( 17), it was
held as under:-
"17. Having perused the report of the Registrar and the affidavits
filed on behalf of different States, we issue the following directions:
(a) All States which have invited tenders, have completed the
process of finalising the successful bidder and issued the letter
of intent, but have not yet signed agreements with the successful
bidder, shall sign such agreements within four weeks from today.
These States are Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Jammu and
Kashmir, Jharkhand, Punjab, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh.
(b) The States which have so far not even finalised the tender
process, they should do so, again, within four weeks from today.
Amongst others these States and Union Territories are
Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Chandigarh, Delhi (NCT) and
Puducherry.
(c) Installation ofHSRP is a statutory command which is not
only in the interest of the security of State, but also serves a
much larger public interest. Therefore, it is not only desirable,
945
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
946
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
but mandatory, for every State to comply with the statutory
provisions/orders of this Court in terms of A11icle 129 of the
Constitution oflndia, 1950. All States, therefore, are mandated
to fully implement the Scheme of fixation of HSRP in their
entire State, positively by 30-4-2012 in relation to new vehicles
and 15-6-2012 for old vehicles. We make it clear that they
shall not be allowed any further extension of time for
implementation of this direction.
(d) The directions contained in the earlier judgments of this
Court and more pa11icularly, the orders dated 30-8-2011, 1310-2011, 8-12-2011 and this order, should be implemented within
the extended period without default.
( e) In the event of default, Secretary (Transport)/Commissioner,
State Transport Authority and/or any other person or authority
concerned responsible for such default shall be liable to be
proceeded against under the provisions of the Contempt of
Cou11s Act, 1971."
This Court further gave liberty to approach this Court again, in case of
violation of HSRP scheme. It was pe11inently observed:-
"18. We grant liberty to the petitioner and/or any other person to
take out contempt proceedings, if now there is any non-compliance
with the orders of this Cou11 and the statutory duty imposed upon
the authorities concerned with regard to implementation and
completion of the scheme and process of fixation of HS RP, in any
State/Union Territory."
14. Based on the liberty so granted, the petitioner has now launched
the third round ofl itigation by tiling the instant contempt petitions alleging
the disobedience of the various Orders of this Court discussed
hereinabove, specifically orders dated 08.12.2011 and 07.02.2012. This
Court vide Order dated 01.05.2014 observed that as per the bid document,
the location of the factory of Mis. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. (the
technical partner) is disclosed at PlotNoJA, Phase-IV, Industrial Area,
Golemath, District Bi laspur, Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner alleges that
though Mis Utsav has informed ARAI (testing agency) only about the
existence of two manufacturing plants i.e. Himachal Pradesh and Delhi,
Blank High Security Plates are manufactured by Mis. Utsav Safety
Systems Pvt. Ltd. at a plant in Assam by outsourcing the work to Mis
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
Rosmerta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Order dated 08.12.2011 reported
in (2012) 1 SCC 707 does not permit sub-contracts to be awarded by the
contractor to whom the contract for manufacturing and fixation ofHSRP
is awarded and accordingly this Court took the cognizance of the
contempt petitions.
15. Petitioner has alleged that Mis. Utsav in utter violation of
Rule 50, ierms of bid and TAC and various orders passed by this Court
has manufactured HSR plates through job work at an unauthorised unit
in Assam and by doing so, Mis. Utsav has deliberately disobeyed the
various orders passed by this Court from time to time and the respondents
have deliberately chosen not to take any action against Mis. Utsav and
private contractors despite there being clear violation of the rules and
orders passed by this Court and such omission in not initiating action
against the violators amounts to contempt of court and the respondents
are liable to be punished on account of their having committed wilful
disobedience of the orders of this Court. It is further averred that the
petitioner had filed the complaint against Mis. Utsav, Mis. Rosmerta
and Mis. Linkpoint pursuant to which a meeting was held in the Ministry
of Road Transport and Highways on 29.10.2013. Referring to the
manufacture and supply of HSR Plates from the Assam unit, in the
meeting, decision was taken to constitute a team of three members to
inspect and verify the procedure and manufacturing activities in the plant
located at Assam inter-alia on various aspects i.e. quantity of HSR
Plates produced till date which includes: (i) sizes and colours of plates;
(ii) laser code records; (iii) security feature records and (iv) status of
plants at Assam including where the job work is done etc. The three
members committee gave its inspection report dated 29.11.2013. As
per the repo1i, the team observed that there is only one building in the
same compound having the address of 54, Brahmaputra Industrial Park,
Si la, Si la Sinduri Ghopa Changsari, Kamrup, Assam and the same is
divided into two parts; one part is registered in the name of Mis. Utsav
and other pmi is registered in the name of Mis. Rosmerta. The committee
observed that Mis. Utsav was supplying raw material to Mis. Rosmerta
who in turn was manufacturing blank plates as a job work with the
material supplied by Mis. Utsav. Based on the inspection, the team
recorded its conclusion as under:-
"Conclusion:
947
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
• Utsav is outsourcing the HSRP blank operation through job
H
948
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
work from ROSMERTA. Laser coding as well as security
features control was executed by Utsav from beginning to till
date.
• Utsav Guwahati plant dispatched a total of 5673391 Pcs
HSRP plates since December 2012 onwards and they are given
as under:-
V Himachal Pradesh factory with and without laser
coding
·
V Delhi for laser coding and distribution
V All State consortium partners after laser coding
• Out of a total 5673391 Pcs HSRP plates, 19, 19,550 HSRP
plates were dis patched in the month of November, 2013 by
Utsav to various implementing companies while 51830 Pcs
HSRP is stock at the Guwahati factory ofUtsav."
Petitioner alleges that as per bid document of Mis. Utsav, HSRPs ought
to have bee11 manufactured at Himachal Pradesh Plant of M/s. Utsav.
However, the plates were manufactured at an unauthorized unit in Assam
and thus it is a clear case of sub-contracting of work carried without
control and supervision ofM/s. Utsav which has been conferred TAC
and CoP and a clear case of violation of Rule 50 and Orders of this
Court emerges.
16. The petitioner's counsel also relies upon the report of the
Inquiry Committee ofNCT of Delhi dated 31.01.2014 which reported
large-scale violations committed by the approved manufacturer in the
NCT of Delhi (i.e., consortium of Mis. Utsav-Technical Partner and
Mis. Rosmerta-Financial Partner). It is stated that NCT of Delhi had
also issued show cause notice dated I 0.03.2014 to the consortium ofM/
s. Utsav i.e. Mis. Rosmerta stating that "M/s. Utsav Safety Systems
Pvt. Ltd. Technical Partner of SPB are not supplying any blank HSR
Plates after 10.08.2013 and also alleged that uncertified HSRPs are
being procured/supplied/affixed by M/s. Rosmerta Technologies.
17. Furthermore, the petitioner relies upon the Utsav's letter dated
17.10.2013 addressed to the Transport Commissioner, Government of
Delhi wherein M/s. Utsav has admitted that its concessionaire partners
have supplied uncertified and unauthorized HSRPs. The relevant portion
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VJJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
of the said letter dated 17.10.2013 addressed to the Transport
Commissioner, Government of Delhi, reads as under:-
" .. .lt is to bring to your kind notice that Mis. Rosmerta Technologies
Ltd. which is the other stake-holder, in the SPY has been
concerned with the purchase of Blank number plates from Mis.
Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. and the supply embossment and
fixing of the same to the vehicles in the State. It is noteworthy
that Mis. Rosmerta Technologies Ltd. under the guise of the
Concession agreement has supplied huge quantities ofHSRP in
the name of Mis. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. to the Vehicle
owners of the State without taking Mis. Utsav Safety Systems
Pvt. Ltd. manufactured HSRP and by resorting to the supply of
uncertified and unauthorized HSRP's. I would like to bring to
your kind notice that the manufacturing establishment that has
been laid at Guwahati, Assam by Mis. Rosmerta Technologies
Limited has not been approved by Automotive Research
Association of India (hereinafter referred to as 'ARAI'), hence
any supplies of HSRP made from there would be a prima facie
violation of the Rule 50 and its inherent norms of selection of
Type Approved Manufacturer for the supplies ofHSRP in any of
the States of India ... "
The counsel averred that on the same line, Mis. Utsav had also issued
notice to Mis. Linkpoint Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. stating that under the
guise of Concession Agreement, Mis. Linkpoint Infrastructure had
unauthorisedly manufactured and supplied uncertified number plates in
the respective States and thereby committed material breach of Rule 50
of the CMV Rules and also the Orders passed by this Court. Subsequently,
Mis. Utsav and Mis. Linkpoint Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. by the settlement
dated 19.03.2014 have resolved and settled all their disputes and arrived
at final settlement regarding their inter-se disputes.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
bid document the only plant which was approved was Bilaspur, Himachal
Pradesh Plant and there is enough material on record to show that
5725221 blank I-ISR Plates were manufactured and supplied from the
unauthorised and unapproved plant in Assam and there was no approval
granted to the said plant at Assam and the same is in violation of Rule 50
and orders of this Court and such violation is due to lack of respondent's
administrative conviction to abide by the existing statutory norms and
949
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
950
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
the petitioner therefore prayed for initiating contempt proceeding against
respondents and also inter alia prayed for various directions for strict
compliance ofHSRP Order 2001.
19. Per Contra, counsel for the respondents have in response to
the allegations in the contempt petitions, filed various affidavits denying
that there has been any disregard to the orders of th is Court. In the
affidavit filed onbehalfofrespondents No. I to 4, it is averred that Rule
50 ofCMV Rules of200 I does not place a specific bar on 'job work' or
sub-contracting and the same would however be subject to sub-clauses
(xvii) and (xviii) of Clause 4 of the Motor Vehicles New HSRP Order
that the manufacturer or the supplier would al I times be in control over
all the security features and that he shall not sell any incomplete plate or
security features to anyone. It is further averred that the complete bar
on the job work may hinder implementation ofHSRP scheme in a time
bound manner. ll has been contended that in the process of
implementation of HSRP Scheme, it may be possible to get the certain
items of work executed on 'jobwork' basis without compromising security
of the process. It is fu11her submitted that the issue of 'outsourcing'
was examined in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in a
meeting of the representatives of ARAI and CRRI held on 03.02.2014.
It was decided that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles (New High
Security Registration Plates) Order 200 I with its amendments cannot
be interpreted to prevent outsourcing of manufacturing activities to other
firms when all security features are in control of TAC manufacturer or
the supplier.
20. The statutory agency viz., ARAI in its counter affidavit stated
that Mis. Utsav is outsourcing its work throughjobwork done from Mis.
Rosmerta Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. States have also filed various affidavits
stating that they have taken sufficient action to comply with the orders
of this Court to implement HSRP scheme. Many States in their counter
affidavits have referred to the action taken against Mis. Utsav by issuing
show cause notices for violation of Ruic 50.
G
21. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
averments in the counter affidavits and other material on record.
22. At the outset, it is necessary to note that Mis. Utsav Safety
Systems Pvt. Ltd. (for short "Mis.