//
you're reading...
legal issues

majority of the States have not fully implemented the scheme regulating issuance and fixation of High Security Registration Plates (HSRP). From the affidavits filed on behalf of the respective

1

हिन्दी: हैदराबाद में, जवाहरलाल नेहरु राष्ट्रीय...

Image via Wikipedia

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IA NOS. 10, 16, 17 AND 18

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.510 OF 2005

Maninderjit Singh Bitta …

Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors. …

Respondents

O R D E R

1. This order is in continuation of the orders dated 30th

August, 2011 and 13th October, 2011. The directions contained

in these orders shall be mutatis mutandis applicable with the

directions contained in the present order.

2. Despite the above orders of this Court, majority of the

States have not fully implemented the scheme regulating

issuance and fixation of High Security Registration Plates

(HSRP). From the affidavits filed on behalf of the respective
2
States, it is clear that they have not been vigilant enough to

take appropriate steps for initiation and completion of the HSRP

scheme and, in any case, not with required expeditiousness.

On 25th November, 2011, we heard the learned counsel

appearing for different States and perused the affidavits placed

on record. However, some of the States have not even been

courteous enough to file affidavits of compliance and have orally

prayed for extension of time. In these circumstances, it has

become necessary for us to deal individually with the case of

each State.
Andaman & Nicobar Islands (Union Territory)
3. As per the affidavit, Andaman & Nicobar administration

has already finalized and signed the agreement for awarding the

contract to the successful bidder on 21st October, 2011 and the

work was to be commenced within 30 days of signing of this

contract which has not commenced as yet. They prayed for

further extension of time to complete the implementation of the

scheme. As prayed, we grant period upto 31st March, 2012 for

the Union Territory to complete the implementation of the

scheme without fail.
3
Andhra Pradesh
4. It is the case of the State of Andhra Pradesh that it

published the notice inviting the tenders on 8th October, 2011

and the due date of the tender bids was 26th November, 2011.

The State claims that it has prepared a comprehensive

framework to implement the HSRP scheme and authorized

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. Again,

the process adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh is not only

in violation of the directions contained in paragraphs 39 and 40

of the judgment of this Court in the case of Association of

Registration Plates v. Union of India [(2005) 1 SCC 679], but is

also contrary to the Notification dated 16th September, 2011

which was issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 109 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and called the Motor Vehicles (New

High Security Registration Plates) Order, 2001. This Order does

not permit the completion of the HSRP scheme in the manner

sought to be adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The State
4
was to award the contract but the same has not so far been

awarded. In the circumstances afore-noticed, we direct the

State of Andhra Pradesh to issue fresh tender, award the

contract and commence the implementation of the scheme

positively by 29th February, 2012. It has assured this Court

that now it would positively abide by the time schedule and do

the needful.
Arunachal Pradesh
5. Arunachal Pradesh had invited tenders but all the

tenderers were disqualified resulting in the State being

compelled to invite fresh tenders. Re-tender process had

already been started and the process was to be completed by

18th November, 2011. However, it prayed for three weeks

extension to award the contract and sign the agreement with

the successful bidder. It is further stated on behalf of the State

that the scheme shall be fully implemented in the entire State

by 31st March, 2012. By way of a final opportunity, the time, as

prayed for, is granted.

Assam
6. State of Assam has also started the process but is yet to

complete the formalities and sign the deed of agreement. An
5
inspection of the factories is to be conducted by 15th November,

2011 and the tender valuation has to be completed by 1st

January, 2012. On behalf of the State, it is prayed that it be

allowed time till January, 2012 to award the contract and sign

the agreement with the successful tenderer. Further, it is

submitted that for complete implementation of the scheme, time

be extended till April, 2012. Keeping in view the fact that the

State has to put in some efforts and has certain limitations, in

the interest of justice, we grant, by way of final opportunity, the

extension of time, as prayed for. The contract shall be awarded

and agreement be signed by 31st January, 2012 and the

implementation of the scheme be completed by 30th April, 2012.
Bihar

7. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, it has

been stated that the tenders were published on 21st September,

2011. Due date for submission of tenders was 7th October,

2011. The financial bids were opened on 4th October, 2011, but

because of completion of formalities, delay has been caused.

Resultantly, six weeks extension has been prayed for on behalf

of the State of Bihar.
6
8. We may notice that the implementation by the State of

Bihar is defective in law. In fact, it violates the directions of this

Court contained in the case of Association of Registration Plates

(supra) as well as the other directions contained in the orders of

this Court as afore-referred.

9. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, appearing on

behalf of the State has impressed upon the Court that in order

to achieve greater competitive price and not to depend on a

single supplier, the State of Bihar, after following the procedure,

has short-listed four bidders. The State proposes to award

supply and fixation of HSRP to all these four bidders for the

same part of the State. It is also his contention that paragraphs

39 and 40 of this Court in the judgment in the case Association

of Registration Plates (supra) do not contemplate selecting one

manufacturer for supply of the HSRP. We are not convinced by

this submission. Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the judgment of this

Court clearly lay down that selecting one manufacturer through

the process of open competition does not result in creation of

any monopoly. This Court had rejected such a contention and

directed the maintenance of record and supervision by one

manufacturer, which would be impossible if there were `multi-
7
manufacturers’ instead of one as suppliers. The actual
operation of the scheme through the premises of Regional

Transport Officers (RTOs) would get complicated and confused,

if multi-manufacturers are involved. Even in our order dated

13th October, 2011, we had put any such controversy at rest

and directed all the States to follow the directions contained in

the above-mentioned paragraphs of the said earlier judgment of

this Court. We have no reason to take any different view and it

will be in the interest of all concerned that the directions of this

Court, as aforestated, are implemented by the State without any

further delay. It shall not only be advisable but appropriate to

maintain a uniform practice all over the country. For these

reasons, we reject the contention raised on behalf of the State of

Bihar. The State need not issue any fresh tender but may

award the contract to any of the four short-listed bidders,

whosoever is more beneficial to the State and is in a position to

discharge the contractual obligations as per the terms and

conditions of the tender and the judgments of this Court in this

regard. Let the needful be done by the State of Bihar by 31st

December, 2011 and all the initial steps should be taken for

implementing the scheme of HSRP by 31st March, 2012. Every

possible effort should be made by the State to complete the
8
implementation of the scheme at the earliest.
Chandigarh
10. Chandigarh administration was awaiting the approval of
the Central Government, Ministry of Road Transport and

Highways, which has been received on 18th November, 2011

and they have also received the permission from the Election

Commissioner for going ahead with the awarding of the

contract. It is submitted that by 31st March, 2012, they would

award the contract, commence the implementation of the

scheme for manufacture and fixation of HSRP and efforts would

even be made to complete the implementation by that date. In

view of the unequivocal assurance given in this behalf,

Chandigarh Administration, by way of last opportunity, is

granted time upto 31st March, 2012.

Chhattisgarh
11. State of Chhattisgarh has invited tenders, opened

the final bids on 27th September, 2011 and it is stated by the

State that it will award the contract by 31st January, 2012 and

implement the scheme by 30th April, 2012. In view of the steps

taken and prayer for extension of time, we grant time as prayed
9
for.
Delhi
12. The tenders which were invited for awarding the work of
manufacture and fixation of HSRP were opened on 23rd June,

2011. Financial bids were opened on 28th June, 2011 and the

successful bidder has been finalized. According to the stand

taken by the Delhi Government, the rate schedule has also been

finalized by the Chief Secretary. However, it remains to be

finally accepted by the Delhi Integrated Multimodal Transit

System (DIMTS) which has been constituted by the Government

as a special Purpose Vehicle for overseeing transport in Delhi.

The Delhi Government still has not implemented the scheme

and, in fact, has not even awarded the contract so far. It has

been stated that firstly the terms and conditions of the tender

were challenged by one M/s. Tonnejes Eastern by filing a writ

petition before the Delhi High Court wherein the High Court

had refused the prayer for interim stay. This order of the High

Court dated 10th June, 2011 was challenged before the

Supreme Court. The special leave petition against the non-grant

of the interim order was dismissed by this Court on 23 rd June,

2011. However, special leave petition filed against the order of

dismissal of the writ petition before the High Court vide order
10
dated 26th August, 2011 is pending before this Court, in which

no interim order has been passed.
13. 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 50 of the Motor

Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, the `Rules’), Motor Vehicles

(New High Security Registration Plates) Order, 2011 nor the

judgments of this Court permit sub-contracts to be awarded by

the contractor to whom the award for manufacture and fixation

of HSRP is awarded. Furthermore, in their affidavit dated 26 th

November, 2011 it has been stated that the DIMTS is also

taking other steps and it has divided the implementation

process into two parts: – Firstly, procurement of blank HSRP

confirming to Rule 50 of the Rules and personalization 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
11
permissible 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 DIMTS. 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 of numbers and

affixation of HSRP on the vehicles in the NCT of Delhi. The

Government has prayed for extension of time. We extend the

period for implementation of the scheme till 31st December,

2011, by which date, all steps, complete in all respects, should

be taken by the Delhi Government.
Gujarat
14. The State of Gujarat had issued the tender notice and
considered even the persons not possessed of `TYPE APPROVAL

CERTIFICATE’. However, they have added a condition that

upon awarding of the contract and before manufacturing HSRP,
12
the TYPE APPROVAL CERTIFICATE duly signed by the

competent authority should be submitted, at most within three

months. Due date for submission of tender was 20th October,

2011. Five bids had been received. Technical bids had been

opened. Financial bids are to be opened on 28th November,

2011 and the agreement would be signed by 15th April, 2012.

We do not contribute to the method that has been adopted by

the State of Gujarat for implementation of the scheme. They

ought to have acted in consonance with the directions of this

Court. Be that as it may, since the conditions contained in the

directions of this Court have not been waived and only a period

has been prescribed to submit the `TYPE APPROVAL

CERTIFICATE’, we do not consider it appropriate to direct the

State to hold the entire tender process afresh. But we make it

clear that the agreement should be signed and the

implementation of scheme should positively commence by 30th

April, 2012. We also make it clear that no further time would

be granted to the State of Gujarat in this behalf.
Haryana
15. State of Haryana, in furtherance to the order dated 13th
October, 2011 passed by this Court in a contempt petition has

deposited Rs.50,000/- as costs and Rs.2,000/- as fine imposed
13
on each of the officers. The State has not filed any affidavit and

for the same, no appropriate reason is stated on its behalf.

However, it is stated by the counsel for the State that it has

invited the tenders and even opened the financial bids on 14th

September, 2011. Only contract has to be awarded and scheme

is to be implemented. For this, it is prayed that they would

complete all the formalities and sign the contract by 31st

December, 2011 and implement the scheme in its entirety by

the end of April, 2012. We accept the prayer of the State of

Haryana and, by way of last opportunity, permit them time for

finalization of contract till 31st December, 2011 and for

implementation of the scheme in its entirety upto 30th April,

2012.
Himachal Pradesh
16. The State of Himachal Pradesh has completed the process
of awarding the contract for manufacture and fixation of the

HSRP. They claimed that all new vehicles have been affixed with

the HSRP as on 15th November, 2011 and, for old vehicles, they

prayed for grant of further time. The prayer made on their

behalf to extend the time till December, 2013 is unjust and

without any rational basis. However, in the interest of justice,

we grant time for the complete implementation of the scheme
14
till 15th June, 2012.
Jammu & Kashmir
17. State of Jammu & Kashmir has already selected the
successful bidder and the letter of intent is to be issued to the

party. The same shall be issued within three weeks from the

date of passing of this order and the entire scheme shall be

implemented by 31st March, 2012 in the State of Jammu &

Kashmir. Since the State has taken some steps, we find that

the request for extension of time is reasonable and, by way of

last opportunity, the time prayed for is granted.
Jharkhand
18. The State of Jharkhand has finalized the tenders on 21st
October, 2011 but the agreement has not yet been signed and

formalities in that regard remain to be completed. According to

the counsel appearing for the State, it shall complete the

remaining formalities at the earliest and, in fact, complete the

implementation of the scheme by 30th April, 2012. By way of

last opportunity, the prayer is allowed.
Kerala
19. In the affidavit filed and from the stand taken before this
Court on behalf of the State of Kerala, it is pointed out that

tender notice was published but validity of the earlier tender
15
has expired on 29th June, 2011. There is an order of status quo

passed by the Supreme Court which is in force and, therefore,

the State is not in a position to take appropriate steps for

implementing the scheme. At the request of the State of Kerala,

we grant extension of time and adjourn the matter in regard to

State of Kerala to be taken up immediately after 31st December,

2011. In the meanwhile, we also grant liberty to the parties in

SLP (C) No.13630-31 of 2011 to make a mention before the

concerned Bench at the earliest.
Lakshdweep (U.T.)
20. Lakshdweep had published e-tender on 27th August, 2011.
But the tender had to be cancelled as only one bidder had

responded to the bid. Re-tender is stated to have been

published on 10th October, 2011 and due date for receipt of the

bids was 9th November, 2011. They prayed for extension of time

to award the tender. We make it clear that the Union Territory

of Lakshdweep shall proceed with finalization of the re-tender in

accordance with the judgments of this Court without any

further delay and finalize the entire process by 30th January,

2012. They shall also ensure that implementation of the

scheme is commenced by 30th April, 2012 without fail.
16
Madhya Pradesh
21. The State of Madhya Pradesh has prayed for extension of
four months to award the contract and commence

implementation of the scheme. The reason given for the delay

is that the reply to queries raised by potential bidders was

replied with delay and the last dates for the same had to be

rescheduled. This reason is least convincing. However, the

schedule of dates has already been declared and published and

the parties have acted thereupon. Thus, it is clear that by 31st

January, 2012, the contract should be awarded and

immediately thereafter, the commencement of implementation

of the scheme should begin. Endeavour should be made to

complete the implementation at the earliest and, in any case,

not later than 30th April, 2012.
Manipur
22. The State of Manipur, as per its affidavit, has completed the
process. However, the agreement has not been signed and the

State has not commenced implementation of the scheme as yet.

At the request of the State, we grant time for commencement of

the implementation of the scheme for manufacture and fixation

of HSRP by 31st December, 2011. Let the affidavit of full

compliance be filed thereafter.
17
Mizoram
23. The bid of M/s. Shimit Utsch India Ltd. is stated to have
been authorized by the Council of Ministers. However, the firm

has quoted higher rates than it had quoted to the State of West

Bengal. The Government of Mizoram is negotiating with the

successful tenderer and the negotiations are likely to be

completed within a short period. Let a final decision be taken

by the concerned authorities positively by 31st December, 2011.

Implementation of the scheme should commence immediately

thereafter and implementation be completed, as prayed for, by

31st March, 2012, with no further extension of time.
Nagaland
24. The State of Nagaland has implemented the scheme vide its
Notification dated 6th July, 2011 for all new vehicles, but for old

vehicles, they have prayed for two years’ further time to

implement the scheme. We see no reason, once the contract

has been awarded and the State has implemented the scheme

for new vehicles, why the State should require such a long time

for catering to the old vehicles in the State. Again, by way of

last opportunity, we grant time to the State of Nagaland upto

15th June, 2012 to implement the scheme in the entire State for

all vehicles and to submit affidavit of compliance.
18
Orissa
25. Process of inviting tenders had been completed and
decision to get the documents of the bidders audited was taken

on 24th October, 2011. They submit that final decision to award

the contract shall positively be taken by 31st January, 2012 and

scheme shall be implemented in its entirety by 30th April, 2012.

The time, as prayed for, is granted with a clear direction that no

extension would be granted.
Punjab
26. The State of Punjab has invited the bids, financial
evaluation has been done and bids were opened on 18th

October, 2011. No affidavit has been filed but it has been

stated that the process of awarding of the contract shall be

concluded by 15th January, 2012 and the scheme shall be

implemented in the entire State by 30th April, 2012. Time, as

prayed for, is granted by way of last and final opportunity.
Puducherry/Pondicherry
27. Union Territory of Pondicherry has filed an affidavit stating
that letter of acceptance of tender has been issued on 16 th May,

2011 but the tender had to be cancelled on 19th October, 2011

because of failure on the part of the successful tenderer to

submit the security deposit as per the terms and conditions of
19
the tender. It is also stated that the tenderer had claimed

higher rates than the rates offered by him in the State of West

Bengal and the Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands

but certain negotiations are going on and the State may even

invite fresh tenders. In either event, the State would complete

the entire process of commencing the implementation of the

scheme within four months. In other words, they would invite

fresh tenders, finalise the same, enter into contract and

commence the manufacture and fixation of HSRP on the

vehicles in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The time of four

months, as prayed for, is granted. Let the needful be done

positively by 31st March, 2012.
Sikkim
28. As per the affidavit filed, the State of Sikkim has taken
steps and the entire implementation of the scheme shall be

completed by 31st March, 2012. The time, as prayed for, is

granted with a clear direction that no further extension would

be granted.
Tamil Nadu
29. Affidavit on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu has been filed
stating that last date for respective tenders was 15th November,

2011. In the meanwhile, the Model Code of Conduct for
20
elections came into force w.e.f. 21st September, 2011 to 22nd

October, 2011. Thereafter, the matter would be processed and

the State would finalize awarding of the contract and commence

implementation of the scheme for fixation of HSRP by the end of

February 2012. In view of the definite statement on behalf of

the State and by way of last opportunity, the time is granted

upto 29th February, 2012.

Tripura
30. The State of Tripura has filed no affidavit. However, a
stand was taken before the Court on its behalf that there was a

stay for awarding the contract which has since been vacated

and the tender process would be completed expeditiously. As

prayed, we grant three months time to the State to award the

contract as well as to commence the implementation of the

scheme. Needful be done by 29th February, 2012, by way of last

opportunity and no further time would be granted.
Uttar Pradesh
31. As per the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Uttar
Pradesh, the notice for inviting tenders had been published.

Last date for submission of tenders was 5th July, 2011. Seven

bids were received, though no contract has so far been awarded
21
and no agreement has been signed as yet. Request had been

made on behalf of the State for extension of time. We may also

notice that according to the State, a writ petition had been filed

in the High Court of Allahabad to quash the tender for

manufacture of these registration plates. There is no interim

stay granted by the High Court. We make it clear that the State

of Uttar Pradesh should ensure manufacture and affixation of

HSRP through a single process and person in terms of the

judgment of this Court. The Evaluation Committee should meet

and take a final decision. The contract should be awarded and

the implementation of the scheme should commence within

three months from the date of passing of this order as prayed

for. By way of last opportunity, the period is extended upto 29 th

February, 2012.
Uttarakhand
32. As per the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of
Uttarakhand, it had invited the tenders and evaluated the

technical bids on 8th November, 2011. The financial bids were

to be considered on 11th November, 2011. The Government has

approved the issuance of the letter of acceptance but it is not

clear from the affidavit whether the awarding of the contract is

actually complete or not and whether agreement has been
22
signed or not. Let all formalities in regard to awarding of

contract be completed by 31st December, 2011 and the scheme

should be fully implemented by 30th April, 2012. It is made

clear that no further extension would be granted for this

purpose.
West Bengal
33. This State has filed an affidavit wherein it is submitted that
in two RTOs of the State, there has been partial implementation

of the scheme. We are unable to see any justification in the

stand of the State Government for partial implementation of the

scheme but, in the interest of justice and by way of last

opportunity, we grant the State time upto 31st January, 2011 to

implement the scheme in the rest of the State. This time is

being given as prayed for by the learned counsel appearing for

the State. We make it clear that no further extension will be

granted in this regard.
34. The states of Karnataka, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Goa
and Union Territories of Daman & Diu and Dadara & Nagar

Haveli have not filed affidavits in furtherance to the orders of

this Court dated 13th October, 2011. We may also notice that

both the Union Territories above-referred have not even issued

tenders, much less taken any further steps to comply with the
23
directions of this Court. Non-filing of affidavits itself is a matter

of concern for this Court. It has caused serious difficulties for

this Court in dealing with this case meaningfully and effectively.

From the affidavits on record which were filed by these States

and Union Territories, it appears that the litigation is pending

in regard to the tender process itself in the Courts for the States

of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Goa and Karnataka and for non-

filing of affidavits, these States/Union Territories have already

violated the orders of the Court. It is not clear from the record

as to what is the stage of these proceedings and whether any

order of stay/injunction has been passed by the Courts, as a

consequence of which, it is not possible for the respective

State/Union Territory to pursue the matter any further and

finalize the awarding of contracts in accordance with the

directions of this Court. It was expected of all these States and

Union Territories to file proper affidavits. We grant time upto

31st December, 2011 to take appropriate steps to get the interim

orders vacated, if there are any, and then to file affidavit

positively by the date aforestated.
35. The Union Territories of Daman & Diu and Dadara & Nagar
Haveli should explain as to why no steps at all have been taken

by them in furtherance to various orders of this Court.
24
36. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and perused the documents on record, we consider it

imperative to pass certain general directions in addition to the

above specific directions passed by us in regard to every State

or Union Territory, as the case may be. Thus, we also pass the

following general directions :

1. Affidavits of compliance and undertakings to comply with

the directions of the Court, as contained in different

orders of this Court, should be filed within four weeks

from 25th November, 2011. The affidavits-cum-

undertakings shall be filed by the Secretary (Transport)

and the Commissioner (Transport) of respective States

and Union Territories. The time schedule specified in

this order shall be strictly adhered to. We make it clear

that no further time shall be granted by the Court for

this purpose.

2. In the event of default and non-compliance of any of the

directions contained in this order by any authority, this

Court would be compelled to initiate proceedings against

such officer/officers in accordance with the provisions of

the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, without any further

notice to them.
25
3. This matter shall be listed before the Registrar (Judl.) of

this Court on 5th January, 2012. The Registrar shall

verify and submit a report to this Court as to which of

the State/Union Territory and their respective officers

have not complied with the directions of this Court as

contained in this order. The report of the Registrar shall

be submitted and the matter be placed before the Court

on 20th January, 2012.

4. We are of the considered view that various matters pending

before this Court, wherein challenge has been raised to

the tender process commenced and/or finalized by the

respective States/Union Territories for implementation of

the HSRP scheme, should be listed before one and the

same Court. Then alone, the effective implementation of

the directions of the Court is possible. Thus, the matter

should be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice on the

administrative side for appropriate orders at the earliest.

5. On behalf of the 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 specialized experience for manufacture and
26
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. In 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 concerned State/Union Territory to take

appropriate decision with reference to the facts of a given

case and in accordance with law. Prima facie, 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

performance of the contract.

6. In the interest of justice and to ensure proper

implementation of the judgments and directions of this

Court, as contained in its various orders, in regard to

manufacturing and affixation of the HSRP, it is

imperative for this Court to direct that it will be in the

fitness of things and even the judicial proprietary would

demand that no High Court should pass any interim

orders cancelling or staying the tender process in relation
27
to implementation of the scheme. While so directing, we

grant liberty to the parties to make a mention before this

Court after they have instituted their petitions, if any,

before the High Court and interim orders have been

declined in furtherance to the observations aforemade.
37. With the above directions and at the cost of repetition, we
direct all the authorities in the State/Union Territory hierarchy

to ensure that these directions should be complied without

default and delay.
38. Accordingly, all IAs stand disposed of. This order shall also
be treated as an order in the main petition and the main

petition alone shall be listed for hearing on the next date.

……………………………CJI.

(S.H. Kapadia)

……………………………..J.

(A.K. Patnaik)

……………………………..J.

(Swatanter Kumar)

New Delhi;

December 08, 2011

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,610 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: