MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA versus VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS.
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 934, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
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; 955-
A-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 TAC-
holders 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 multi-
manufacturers 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, 13-
10-2011, 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. Utsav") has got a tender for 
manufacturing HSRPs at least in seven states by entering into Special 
H 
Purpose Vehicle (SPY) either with Mis. Linkpoint or with Mis. Rosmerta.
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CI-IHIBBER & ORS. 
951 
[R. BANUMATI-11, J.] 
The details of the contracts awarded to Mis Utsav and the SPVsl 
A 
consortium partners are as under:-
S.No. 
State 
Details ofSPV/Conso1tium Partners 
i. 
Himachal 
SPY Mis. Link Utsav Ventures (P) Ltd. (SPY 
Pradesh 
Partners Mis. Link Point Infrastructure Pvt. 
Ltd. and Mis. Utsav Safety Svstems Pvt. Ltd.) 
ii. 
Haryana 
SPY Mis. Link Utsav Regisnation Plates Pvt. 
Ltd. 
(SPY 
Partners 
Mis. 
Link 
Point 
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Mis. Utsav Safety 
Systems Pvt. Ltd.) 
iii. 
Uuarakhnnd 
SPY Mis. Link Utsav HSRP Pvt. Ltd. (SPY 
Partners Mis. Link Point lnfmstructure Pvt. 
Ltd, and Mis. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd.) 
iv. 
Delhi 
SPY Mis. Rosmerta HSRP Ventures Pvt. Ltd. 
(SPY Partners Mis. 
Rosmerta Technology 
Ltd. and Mis. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd.) 
V. 
And lira 
SPY Mis. Link 
Autotech Pvt. Ltd. (SPY 
Pradesh & 
Paitners Mis. Link Point lnfiastructure Pvt. 
Telangana 
Ltd. and Mis. Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd.) 
vi. 
West Bengal 
Consortium Partners 
Mis. 
Utsav Safety 
Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mis. Subba Microsystems 
Ltd. and Mis. M. S. Associates. 
vii. 
Bihar 
Consortium 
Pa1tners 
Mis. 
Link 
Point 
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Mis. Utsav Safety 
Systems Pvt Ltd.). 
In so far as the State of Madhya Pradesh is concerned, M/s. Utsav is in 
SPY partnership with Mis. Linkpoint. Due to violations of Rule SO plus 
terms and conditions of the contract, the contract awarded to SPY-Ml 
s.
Linkpoint lnfrastructur;; Pvt. Ltd. had been cancelled and the matter 
· is sub-Judice in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 
23. Before we proceed to consider the merits of the contentions 
raised by the petitioner, it is imperative to discuss what are TAC and 
CoP:-
Type of Approval Certificate (TAC) and Conformity of Production (CoP): 
Once a person has been declared successful bidder for the manufacturing 
ofl-ISRPs then such bidder has to obtain TAC and CoP from the testing 
agency before starting manufacturing. Rule SO of the Central Motor 
Vehicles Rules 1989 provides for form and manner of display of 
registration marks. Rule SO authorizes the testing agency to give TAC to 
individual manufacturer for the manufacture of I-ISRPs. In conformity 
with the specifications prescribed under the rules. At present there are 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
952 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 
four testing agencies to issue TAC which include the Automative 
Research Association of India (ARAf); 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 manufacturing 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. 
Mis. Utsav was initially issued the TAC on 08.07.2002 by ARAI and 
received the first conformity of the production on 07.08.2003 and the 
same were subsequently renewed. 
24. hi the counter affidavit filed by sixth respondent (ARAI), it is 
stated that there are two stages of manufacturing process-first carried 
out in a plant/factory of the TAC holder and thereafter the process.es 
like embossing ofregistration allocated by the concerned RTO which is 
to be undertaken in RTO premises. Details of two stages of 
manufacturing and installation process are as under:-
Processes which are to be carried out in the plant/factory ofTAC holder: 
• Purchase of Raw
material namely reflective sheet, Aluminium 
Plate, Chromium based hologram. hot stamping black foil film 
and non-removable snap lock for fixing plates etc. 
• Lamination ofreflective sheet having blue endorsement oflND 
on the aluminium plate. 
• Hot Stamping of Hologram on the reflective sheet after 
lamination. 
• Stamping of blank plate. 
• Edge formation of the plate. 
G 
• Etching unique security laser coding number running serially 
having two allocated alphabets prefixed to the unique number 
as given in TAC. 
Processes which are to be taken in RTO premises: 
• Embossing of registration number al located by RTO along with 
H 
hot stamping of black foil with blue pigment inscription on the
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS. 
953 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
number allocated and also on the border of plate. 
A 
• Making of the third sticker on a destructive film having 
hologram, laser coding numbers, name of RTO, engine number, 
chasis number, registration number allocated by RTO for front 
and rear plates. 
• Fixation of finished HSRP on the vehicle using Snap Lock and 
fixing of third stickeron the wind screen for 4-wheeled vehicles. 
25. From the report of the minutes of the various meetings and 
report of :he inspection team, it is seen that M/s. Rosmerta is not a 
Technical Partner or a Financial Partner (except in the NCT of Delhi) in 
any of the States where Mis. Utsav has got a tender of manufacturing 
HSRPs. As per the HSRP Order of 200 I, HSRPs have to be certified 
by the testing agencies. Manufacturing 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 noticed 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. Rosme1ta 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. 
26. Mis. Utsav filed IA No.3/14 dated 25.02.2014 stating that 
joint venture cons01tium of Mis. Utsav with Mis. Rosmerta in the NCT 
of Delhi is the approved manufacturer. While Mis. Utsav in consortium 
with Mis. Linkpoint (SPY partners) is the approved manufacturer in the 
States of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, 
Bihar, Delhi and Andhra Pradesh, in l.A.No.3/14 Mis. Utsav has 
highlighted how it has lost control over the manufacturing process, is in 
violation of CoP, and also manufacture and supply of HSRPs by Mis. 
Rosmerta situated in the State of Assam which has not been certified by 
any of the testing agencies and that there is clear violation of Rule 50 of 
CMV Rules and CoP guidelines. Though, subsequently Mis. Utsav filed 
the application to recall the said I.A.No.3114, the averments made in 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
954 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 
l.A.No.3/14 speak volumes about the actual truth of the Concessionaire 
Agreement between M/s. Utsav Technical Partner on the one hand and 
Mis. Rosme11a and Mis. Linkpoint on the other. 
27. In the light of the above discussion, in our view, there seems 
to be primafacie violation of Rule 50 ofCMV 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. In the facts and circumstances of the case discussed 
infra, we are not inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the 
respondents. M/s. 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. The undertaking ofM/s Utsav reads as under: 
• That Utsav is a holder of Type Approval Certificate (TAC) 
and Conformity of Production (CoP) having a manufacturing 
facility as on date at Plot No.3A, Phase IV, Industrial Area, 
Golemath, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh-17420 I. 
• I hereby state that Utsav shall not outsource the blank plate 
manufacturing (as was being done at Assam till November 
2013) as job work for the purpose of implementation of the 
terms and conditions of the contract. Utsav who holds TAC 
Certificate will be manufacturing blank plates at
its plant in 
Himachal Pradesh and the implementation of the HSRP 
Scheme will be done by the Concessionaire at the place 
designated by the State transpo11 authorities in accordance with 
the terms and conditions of the contract and the MY Rules/ 
Order. 
• ... .In the event, any such other/additional unit/s of Utsav 
commences manufacturing activity in any other location, due 
process oflaw will be followed and necessary approvals would 
be taken as envisaged under the applicable norms and 
requirements flowing from Act, Rules, Order etc. and the 
conditions stipulated under respective tenders, as accepted. In 
that eventuality, Utsav may manufacture not only at Himachal 
Pradesh but at any other place duly approved by the competent 
authority/ies. The statement made in Para 4 hereinabove shall 
equally apply to any such manufacturing activity.
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHil3BER & ORS. 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
Having regard to the undertaking filed by M/s. Utsav and considering 
the passage ohime, we are not inclined to proceed with the contempt 
proceedings. 
28. Though, we are not proceeding against the contemnors, it is 
open to the respective states to proceed against M/s. Utsav or the 
respective SPY for violation, if any, noticed or brought to its notice. Be 
it noted that in view of the continued non-compliance of Authority's 
instructions and statutory violations, the State of Madhya Pradesh has 
terminated the Concessionaire Agreement by its Order No.1538 dated 
19.06.2014. Mis. Link Utsav Auto Systems Pvt. Ltd. filed W.P. No.3654/ 
2014 before the High Court and the said termination was quashed by the 
High Court by its order dated 05.08.2014 on the ground that M/s. Link 
Utsav Auto Systems Pvt. Ltd. did not get adequate opportunity to explain 
its conduct and the Court granted liberty to the State Government to 
issue a fresh show cause notice within a period of three months. After 
issuing fresh notice dated 29.08.2014 and after affording fresh opportunity 
to Mis. Link Utsav Auto Systems Pvt. Ltd., the State of Madhya Pradesh 
terminated the Concessionaire Agreement by its order dated 17.10.2014. 
The Delhi Government also issued show cause notice dated I 0.03.2014 
to Mis. Rosmerta HS RP Ventures Pvt. Ltd. for non-compliance/violation 
of the statutory scheme and orders of this Court. We make it
clear that 
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. 
29. In the counter affidavit filed by the DGM on behalf of ARAI, 
it has been mentioned that ARAI approves the prototype motor vehicles 
and safety critical components thereof, as per the notified Central Motor 
Vehicle Rules (CMVR) and standards referred therein. On verification 
of documents including testing, TAC is granted after compliance of 
CMVR is established. Government of India, Mo RT &H vide letter 
No.RT-I I 028/5/2002 MVL dated 04.09.2002 issued the Conformity of 
Production (CoP) procedure and the aforesaid letter provides for the 
checks to be carried out by the test agency during the first CoP and the 
subsequent CoPs. In the absence of any specific notification on the 
subject, this was construed as guidelines for issuing the CoP. The said 
letter reads as under:-
The CoP procedure will comprise the following:-
955 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
• The prospective vendors after establishing manufacturing plant 
H
956 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 
in the country shall inform the concerned Testing Agency which 
had granted Type Approval Certificate within one month of 
commencement of manufacturing. The Testing Agency will 
draw samples of the plates from the plant within three months 
of date of Commencement of Production (CoP) and carry out 
all the tests, which were carried out at the Type Approval stage. 
• First CoP will be conducted at the manufacturer's plant and 
subsequent CoPs would be done on the basis of samples drawn 
at random from the vendor's premises. Checks as per 
Annexure-1 may be carried out at the first and subsequent 
CoPs. 
• At the time of CoP all the tests, such as, visual test, status of 
laser branded permanent identification number of the plate, 
vis-a-vis, records of the RTO regarding issue of plates etc. 
shall be carried out, except weathering test which may be 
carried out once in two years. Details of checks to be carried 
out at the first and subsequent CoPs are at Annexure-1. 
• The CoP frequency shall be 5 lakh number plates or six months 
whichever is earlier. 
30. 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 incomplete 
plates or jobwork to other consortium partners namely Mis. Linkpoint 
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Mis Rosmerta Technologies Ltd. who are 
selling illegal HSRPs
in various States. ARAI has no role to play so far 
as activities of Mis. 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 M/s. 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. 
31. In the counter affidavit filed by the Director, CRRI it is stated 
that CRRI is one of the agencies empowered by law to issue Type 
Approval Certificate. Consequent to the issuance of the TAC, the CRRI 
has to undertake the Conformity of Production (CoP) proceedings for 
every TAC holder. This is to ensure that the HSR Plates so manufactured 
by the TAC holding companies are indeed in conformity with the
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. Vl.IAY CHHIBBER & ORS. 
957 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
conditions of the TAC and the HSRP Scheme. 
A 
32. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India on 
05.09.2014, it has been specifically mentioned that the role of the Union 
oflndia is limited to notifying the Rules mandating installation ofHSRP 
on vehicles, notifying the standards and specifications of HSRP and the 
testing agencies which are to test the plates, type approval of vendors 
based on the above specifications and to notily the date of implementation. 
The Union oflndia has modified the Standard and Specifications vide 
'The Motor Vehicle (New High Security Registration Plates) Order-
200 I' and has notified the testing agencies also. In the counter affidavit 
filed by Union oflndia, it is averred that the implementation of the scheme 
in accordance with the rules framed by the Union of India and 'The 
Motor Vehicles (New High Security Registration Plates) Order, 200 I' is 
the responsibility of the States/Union Territories which is being 
implemented by the respective States. 
33. Even though Union oflndia has stated that the implementation 
of the scheme in accordance with the rules framed by Union oflndia is 
the responsibility of the States/Union Territories, in our view, the Union 
oflndia has to ensure that there is regular check of manufacturing units 
which are engaged in the HSRP project by coordinating with the various 
States/Union Territories. Likewise, as per
the guidelines issued in the 
letter dated 04.09.2002, it is for ARAI to check the plates as per 
Annexure-1 enclosed with the said letter and that it takes stern action as 
and when there are violations/deviations. 
34. Though we are not inclined to initiate the contempt proceedings 
yet in order to enable the statutory authorities to keep a control over the 
8 
c 
D 
E 
implementation of the scheme, it is necessary to issue directions/guidelines 
F 
for proper implementation of the HSRP Scheme as under:-
i. The State Governments shall ensure the strict adherence of 
Rule 50 ofCMV Rules and various orders issued by this Com1 
in Writ Petition No. 510 of 2005 and shall ensure that the 
selected manufactures are able to satisfactorily build the requisite 
G 
capacity and infrastructure thereby ensuring smooth 
implementation at the grass root level. The State Governments 
shall ensure selection and authorisation only of those TAC 
manufactures who have been financially and technically 
competent to manufacture and supply the requisite number of 
HSRP in the State. 
H
958 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 
11. Manufacturing ofHSRP starts with the grant ofTAC and CoP. 
Hence, periodic assessment, review and audit by the testing 
agencies of all the aspects involved in the HSRP product 
specifications, process compliances and operational procedures 
in totality is warranted. The testing agencies shall ensure that 
quality and specifications is not being compromised. 
iii. Furthermore, the HSRP contracts should be awarded pursuant 
to a transparent tender process. The factors such as 
topographical and geographical conditions, vehicular population, 
adequate infrastructure, cost of managing logistics, equipments 
and human resources etc. must be considered before accepting 
any bid and entering into the contract. 
iv. The authorized HRSP manufacturer shall not outsource the 
blank plate manufacturing as job work for the purpose of 
implementation of terms and condition of the Contract signed. 
HSRP Scheme should be done by the Concessionaire at the 
place designated by the State Transport authorities in 
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract and 
MY Rules/Order. 
v. The authorized manufacturer shall be permitted set up other/ 
additional manufacturing units in accordance with the Acts and 
Rules. Jn any event, it is directed that any such other/additional 
units ofUtsav commences manufacturing activity in any other 
location, due process of law will be followed and necessary 
approvals would
be taken as envisaged under the applicable 
norms and requirement flowing from Act, Rules, Order etc. 
and the Conditions stipulated under respective Tenders, as 
accepted. 
vi. HSRP manufacturers should carry out all the processes of 
HSRP project in the plant as indicated in the tender documents, 
namely: 
(a) purchase ofraw materials, such as, reflective sheet, aluminium 
plate, chromium based hologram, hot stamping black foil film 
and non-removable snap lock for fixing plates, etc; 
(b) lamination ofreflective sheet having blue endorsement oflN[ 
on the aluminium plate;
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CHHIBBER & ORS. 
959 
[R. BANUMATH!, J.] 
(c)hot stamping of Hologram on the reflective sheet after 
A 
lamination; 
(d) stamping of blank plate; 
(e)edge formation of the plate; 
(t) etching unique security laser coding number running serially 
B 
having two allocated alphabets prefixed to the unique number 
as given in TAC; 
(g)the selected manufacturers should ensure that every process 
of the work is being done under its control with the help of 
trained workers and not to sub-contract or outsource any part 
C 
of the process of the work to forgo security norms. 
Note:- All the above processes ought to be carried out in the 
plant of the manufacturer as indicated in the tender documents. 
vii. The State Government should ensure that successful bidders 
or sub-contractors or other parties do not have control over 
the manufacturing processing and fixation of HSRP in any 
manner unless authorized under law. It must be ensured that 
one single person is responsible for manufacturing, affixation 
of seals, imprinting of umbers and affixation of HSRP on 
vehicles. 
viii.The record must be maintained by the manufacturer of HSRP 
as to the number of plates manufactured and made ready 
everyday alongwith weekly and monthly statements. 
ix. The manufacturing unit must strictly govern and control the 
implementation of the process of production and fixation of 
HSRP. All the concerned authorities are directed to look after 
the aforesaid process
being adopted for fixation of HSRPs 
and State must report back ifthe violation continues. 
x. The testing agencies along with the team comprising of State 
level officer (not below the rank of RTO) and one expert as 
nominated by the Transport Commissioner of the respective 
State shall inspect the unit and certify the manufactured HSRP 
and manufactured HSRP shall leave the factory premises of 
the manufacturer only after being cleared by the testing 
agencies. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
960 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 7 S.C.R. 
xi. The transpo11 officials of the State Government shall ensure 
that manufacturing units are periodically inspected and ensure 
compliance of Rule 50 of the CMV Rules and also the terms 
and conditions of the Contract. Additionally the Central 
Government should form Committees in collaboration with the 
State Governments in order to keep regular check on the 
manufacturing units which are engaged in HSRP project. The 
manufacturing units must be periodically inspected by the 
Committee so constituted and report be sent to MoRTH and 
also to the Transport Commissioner of the concerned State 
highlighting the compliance or otherwise of Rule 50 of the CMV 
Rules, the terms and conditions of the contract and also any 
sho1tcomings noticed during inspection and suggestions by the 
team. 
xii. The Central Government and the State Governments should 
strictly implement HSRP policy in all the States in a time bound 
manner. 
xiii.The Central Government and the State Governments should 
register complaints regarding the violation and, in case of 
violations, both the Central Government and the State 
Governments should take strict action in accordance with law. 
xiv.The Central Government should create a nationwide common 
repository ofVehicular Registration Data for achieving the basic 
objective behind the idea ofHSRP scheme and thereby ensuring 
smooth implementation at the grass root level. 
xv. It is
directed that the concerned shall strictly implement the 
rules and also orders of this Court in letter and spirit and not 
dilute any standards ofHSRP, voluntarily or otherwise. All the 
authorities must take proactive measures to implement the 
HSRP Order according to the provisions stated. 
xvi.The HSRP process initiated by States for implementation of 
the Scheme must be such that even in the case, where parties 
had bid in the capacity of a consortium or a joint venture, the 
State are under obligation in respect of tenders floated by the 
respective states to create a Special Purpose Vehicle which 
would finally enter into a Concession Agreement, but in any 
event the State must ensure that entire responsibility of HSRP
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. VIJAY CI-IHIBBER & ORS. 
961 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
project would remain with one entity/SPY which would be 
A 
responsible for manufacturing, affixation of seals, imprinting 
of numbers etc. It is directed that Concessionaire would be 
exclusively responsible for the entire process. 
xvii.A specific direction is issued to Additional Commissioner 
(Traffic) and DCP (Traffic) to organize a special drive and 
B 
compliance thereto must be recorded. 
xviii.The Central Government and State Government are directed 
to strictly regulate as well as monitor the implementation as 
per the provisions of law including the provisions of Motor 
Vehicles (New High Security Registration Plates) Order, 200 I c 
and aforesaid directions issued by this Court. 
35. With the above directions and observations, contempt petitions 
are disposed of. It will not however, prevent the respective States to 
proceed against Mis. Utsav or the respective SPV for the violation of 
the terms and conditions of the contract, if any, Rule 50 of the CMV 
o 
Rules and directions/orders of the respective State Governments. 
Devika Gujral 
Contempt petitions disposed of.