2011 (10) TMI 750 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the Central Government's power to issue notifications and tender conditions.
2. Non-compliance by States with the High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) Scheme.
3. Contempt proceedings against defaulting States and their officers.

Summary:

1. Challenge to the Central Government's Power:
The Government of India issued notifications u/s 41(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Rule 50 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, to implement the High Security Number Plates scheme. A writ petition (Writ Petition (C) No. 41 of 2003) challenged the Central Government's power to issue such notifications and the tender process terms. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the notifications and tender conditions in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India (2005) 1 SCC 679.

2. Non-compliance by States with the HSRP Scheme:
Despite the Supreme Court's directions, many States failed to implement the HSRP scheme. This led to the filing of Writ Petition (C) No. 510 of 2005, which was disposed of in Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India (2008) 7 SCC 328, directing States to implement the scheme within six months. However, non-compliance persisted, leading to further orders by the Court on 7th April 2011 and 30th August 2011, classifying States into categories based on their compliance status.

3. Contempt Proceedings Against Defaulting States and Their Officers:
The State of Haryana was identified as a defaulting State. The Court issued notices for contempt proceedings against the Secretary (Transport) and the Commissioner, State Transport Authority, for willful disobedience of Court orders. The Court found them guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 129 of the Constitution of India. They were fined Rs. 2,000 each, with a default penalty of fifteen days' simple imprisonment. Additionally, exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000 were imposed on the State of Haryana, to be recovered from the salaries of the erring officers. The State was directed to comply with the orders and implement the scheme within eight weeks.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of compliance with its orders, especially in matters of public safety and security. The judgment highlighted the judiciary's role in ensuring adherence to the rule of law and the consequences of willful disobedience by State authorities.