MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                              [2012] 1 S.C.R. 874


A                        MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA
                                         v.
                          UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                     (Writ Petition (C) No. 510 of 2005)

                              FEBRUARY 7, 2012
B
         [S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER
                            KUMAR, JJ.]

            MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988:
c
           ss. 41(6) and 109(3) - High Security Registration Plates
  (HSRP) Scheme - Implementation of - Held: Installation of
  HSRP is a statutory command which is not only in the interest
  of the security of State, but also serves a much larger public
0 interest - Therefore, it is not only desirable, but mandatory,
  for every State Government and Union Territory to comply with
  the statutory provisions/orders of Supreme Court in terms of
  Art. 129 of the Constitution of India - All State Governments
  and Union Territories, therefore, are mandated to fully
  implement the scheme of fixation of HSRP in their entire
E territories, positively within the time specified - The orders of
  the Court are expected to be implemented without default and
  with a sense of urgency - Further, directions issued as regards
  costs for non-compliance with the orders of the Court - As
  regards unwarranted conduct and wilful disobedience of
F orders of the Court by the State concerned, notice to issue
  as directed in the judgment - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.
  129 - Contempt of Court - Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - r.5 -
  Costs.

G       In the case of Association of Registration Plates' the
    challenge made to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles
    Rules, 1989 the statutory order of the Central Government
    and the terms and conditions of the tender process with
    1.    2004 (6) suppl. scR 496 = 2oos (1) sec 679.
H                                      874
  MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. UNION OF INDIA &            875
                    ORS.

respect to implementation cf the High Security                  A
Registration Plates (HSRP) Scheme was rejected by the
Supreme Court. The Court also issued certain directions
for appropriate implementation of the Scheme. However,
persistent default and non-compliance by different State
Governments and Union territories with regard to                B
implementation of the scheme and the orders passed by
the Supreme Court resulted in filing of the instant writ
petition. The Court passed orders on 30.8.2011,
13.10.2011 and 8.12.2011, directing the defaulter State
Governments and Union territories to implement HSRP             c
Scheme within the specific time frame and file affidavits
and undertakings. Non-Compliance of the said orders led
to filing of contempt petitions and IAs. Despite specific
orders of the Court, some of the State Governments and
Union Territories failed to file the requisite affidavits and   D
undertakings.

    Disposing of Writ Petition No. 510 of 2005, IAs and
Contempt Petitions filed therein, and remitting the other
matters back, the Court
                                                                E
     HELD: 1.1 Installation of HSRP is a statutory
command which is not only in the interest of the security
of State, but also serves a much larger public interest.
Therefore, it is not only desirable, but mandatory, for
every State to comply with the statutory provisions/            F
orders of this Court in terms of Art 129 of the Constitution
of India, 1950. All states, therefore, are mandated to fully
implement the scheme of fixation of HSRP in their entire
State, positively within the time specified by 30.4.2012 in
relation to new vehicles, and 15.6.2012 for old vehicles.       G
[para 11 (c)] [885-H; 886-A-C)

      1.2 The States of Himachal Pradesh, Manipur,
l\llizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Uttarakhand and Union
Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands have, by and
large, implemented the scheme and have commenced the            H
    876     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2012] 1 S.C.R.


A program for fixation of HSRPs in their respective States.
  The Court appreciates the effort put by these states and
  would direct that they should complete the entire
  program in all respects before 30-4-2012. [para 10] [885-
  8-C]
8
       1.3 It is emphasized that the Court's time is spent on
  these cases, that too, at the cost of regular cases
  pending before it. The orders of the Court are expected
  to be implemented without default and with a sense of
  urgency. In the interest of justice and by way of last
C opportunity, the period for filing of the affidavits and/or
  undertakings is extended by two weeks, subject to
  payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs by each State
  concerned. Costs for non-compliance with the directions
  of this Court, shall be paid by the State Governments at
D the first instance. The Court is of the considered view that
  the instant cases are not such where the Court should
  permit the public exchequer to be burdened by payment
  of costs. In fact, the costs paid should be recovered from
  erring or defaulting officers/officials. [para 9 and 18] [884-
E F-H; 885-A; 888-D-E]

       1.4 The directions contained in the earlier judgments
  of this Court and more particularly, the orders dated
  30.8.2011, 13.10.2011, 8.12.2011, and the instant order
F should be implemented within the extended period
  without default. In the event of default, the Secretary
  (Transport)/ Commissioner, State Transport Authority
  and/or any other person or authority responsible for such
  default shall be liable to be proceeded against under the
G provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. [para
  11 (d) and (e)] [886-D-E]

      2. The Court notices the unwarranted conduct and
  wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court by the
  State of Andhra Pradesh. This State was found to be a
H defaulter even in the earlier orders passed by this Court.
 MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. UNION OF INDIA &           877
                   ORS.

Despite specific directions contained in the order dated A
30.8.2011, the affidavits filed on behalf of the said State
do not even remotely suggest that any steps have been
taken by the State for implementing the scheme of HSRP
in compiiance with the directions issued by this Court.
The conduct and behaviour of the State administration B
has undermined the authority of this Court as well as the
dignity of justice. Consequently, notice be issued to the
Principal Secretary (Transport, Roads and Building
Department), Andh1a Pradesh and the Transport
Commissioner, State of Andhra Pradesh to show cause, c
why they be not punished in accordance with the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act for violating the
orders of this Court. [para 13-15) [886-H; 887-F-G]

     3. All the files that had been summoned by this Court
tor ensuring the complete implementation of the scheme        D
shall revert back to the respective courts for their
disposal in accordance with law. The High Courts
concerned would deal with such matters on priority
keeping in view the directions and orders of this Court.
[para 21) [889-B-C]                                           E

    Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India
(2004) 5 SCC 364; Association of Registration Plates v.
                                       =
Union of India 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 496 (2005) 1 SCC 679;
and Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India (2008) 7 SCC    F
328 - referred to.
                    Case Law Reference:
    (2004) 5 sec 364          referred to         para 2
    2004 (6 ) Suppl. SCR 496referred to           para 2      G

    (2008) 7 sec 328           referred to        para 3

    CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
510 of 2005.
                                                              H
    878      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A                                  WITH
    SLP (C) Nos. 24497, 13485 of 13630-13631 2011 & 1894-
    1897 of 2012

                                 AND
B
          Writ Petition (C) No. 162 of 2010.
         A. Mariarputham AG, Ashok H. Desai, Mukul Rohatgi,
    Harish N. Salve, Bhaskar Raj Pradhanm, Uday U. Lalit, T.S.
    Doabia, Brijender Chahar, R. Sundaravardhan, K.T.S. Tulsi,
c   C.S. Rajan, P.N. Misram AAG. V. Madhukar, Manjit Singh, Dr.
    Manish Singhvi, Pradhuman Gohil, Vikash Singh, S. Hari
    Haran, Taruna Singh, Ajay Bansal, Charu Mathur, Arunabh
    Chowdhury, Anupam Lal Das, Gainilung Panmei, Raktim
    Gogoi, Vaibhav Tamar, Parthiv Goswami, Vikas Singh, S Hari
D   Haran, Sunil Fernandes, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Gunwant Dara,
    Zaid Ali, Manpreet Sing~ Doabia, A. Deb Kumar, Anil Katiyar,
    B. Krishna Prasad, Sunita Sharma, S.S. Rawat, Rohitash S.
    Nagar, D.S. Mahra, Aruna Mathur, Yusuf Khan, Arputham, Aruna
    & Co., Preetesh Kapur, Hematika Wahi, V.G. Pragasam, S.
E   Prabu Ramasubramanian, S.J. Aristotle, Vanita C. Giri,
    Krishnanand Pandeya, Sanjay R. Hegde, Radha Shyam Jena,
    Aruneshwar Gupta, Ranjan Mukherjee, S. Bowmick, S.C.
    Ghosh, R.P. Yadav, B.S. Banthia, Pradeep Purohit, Anip
    Sachethey, Mohit Paul, Shagun Matta, Avijit Bhattacharjee, K.N.
    Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish, Gopal Singh, Rudreshwar Singh,
F   Rituraj Biswas, Rajesh Srivastava, Asha G. Nair, Anitha Bafna,
    Ramesh Babu M.R., B.V. Balaram Das, D. Bharathi Reddy,
    Kamini Jaiswal, Arun K. Sinha, Vikas Mehta, T.V. George,
    Anitha Shenoy, A. Subhashini, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh,
    Sapam Biswajit Metei, Ratan Kumar Chaudhuri, Bharmajeet
G   Mishra, Navnit Kumar, Vartika Sahay (for Corporate Law
    Group), Priyanka Agarwal, Zaid Ali, Kuber Boddh, Jatinder
    Kumar Bhatia, Anil Srivastav, Rituraj Biswas, Sudhir Walia,
    Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Bina Madhavan, G. Prakash, R.K.
    Gupta, Rajeev Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, S. Prasad, Shweta
H   Majumdar, Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, D.K. Sinha, Manmeet
  MANINDERJIT SINGH BITIA v. UNION OF INDIA &               879
                    ORS.

Arora, Kuldip Singh, Tarjit Singh, Kamal Mor,an Gupta, K.           A
Enatoli Serna, Amit Kumar Singh, Edward 8,elho, Nimshim
Vashum, Lhusisato lralu, Balaji Srinivasan, D.1"\. Devesh, lrshad
Ahmad, Asutosh Singh, Milind umar, T. Harish Kumar, P.
Prasanth, G.N. Reddy, C. Kannan, Ravi St1ankar, S. Chandra
Shekhar, Manoj Kumar, Krishanu Adhil<.ary, Astha Sharma,            B
Naresh Bakshi, Rachna Gupta, Himinder. Lal, Abhijit Sengupta,
Rachana Srivastava, D.P. Singh, Shuchita Srivastava, Sonam
Gupta, Vlnay Arora, Sanjay Jain, Suresh Chandra Tripathy,
Jagjit Singh Chhabra for the appearing parties.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                     C
     SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. The Government of India, on
28th March, 2001, issued a notification under the provisions of
Section 41 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the
Act') read with Rule 50 of thie Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for
short, 'the Rules') for implf~mentation of the provisions of the    D
Act. This notification sought to introduce a new scheme
regulating issuance and fixation of High Security Number
Plates. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 109 of the Act,
the Central Government issued an order dated 22nd August,
2001 which dealt with various facets of manufacture, supply and     E
fixation of new High Security Registration Plates (hereinafter,
'HSRP'). The Central Government also issued a notification
dated 16th October, 2001 for further implementation of the said
order and the HSRP scheme. Various States had invited
tenders in order to implement this scheme.                          F
      2. A writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No.41 of 2003 was
filed in this Court 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 above writ petition
before this Court, various other writ petitions were filed in G
different High Courts raising the same challenge. These writ
petitions came to be transferred to this Court. All the transferred
cases along with Writ Petition (C) No. 41 of 2003 were referred
 to a larger Bench of three Judges of this Court, by order of
 reference dated 26th May, 2005 in the case of Association of H
    880       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A Registration Plates v. Union of India [(2004) 5 SCC 364], as
  there was a difference of opinion between the learned Members
  of the Bench dealing with the case. The three Judge Benc'1
  finally disposed of the writ petitions vide its order dated 30th
  November, 2004 reported in Association of Registration Plates
B v. Union of India [(2005) 1 SCC 679]. While dismissing the
  writ petition and the connected matters, this Court rejected the
  challenge made to the provisions of the Rules, statutory orde;
  issued by the Central Government and the tender conditions
  and also i!>sued certain directions for appropriate
c implementation of the scheme.
       3. The matter did not rest there. Persistent default and non-
  compliance by the different States with regard to the statutory
  Rules, implementation of the schemes as well as the orders
  passed by this Court resulted in filing of the present writ petition
D being Writ Petition (C) No.510 of 2005. This writ petition also
  came to be disposed of by a three Judge Bench of this Court
  vide its judgment dated 8th May, 2008 titled as Maninderjit
  Singh Bitta v. Union of India [(2008) 7 SCC 328]. It will be
  appropriate to refer to the operative part of the said judgment:
E     "5. Grievance of the petitioner and the intervener i.e. All
          India Motor Vehicles Security Association is that
          subsequent to the judgment the scheme of 1-iSRP is yet
          not implemented in any State except the State of
          Meghalaya and other States are still repeating the
F         processing of the tender. The prayer therefore is that the
          purpose of introducing the scheme should be fulfilled (sic-
          in) letter and spirit. The object.ive being public safety and
          security there should not be any lethargy. It is pointed out
          that most of the States floated the tenders and thereafter
G         without any reason the process has been slowed down ...
                xxx                    xxx               xxx
          9. Neerlless to say the scheme appears to have been
          introduced keeping in view the public safety and security
H         of the citizens. Let necessary decisions be taken, if not
  MANINDERJIT SINGH BITIA v. UNION OF INDIA &                881
         ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

    already taken, within a period of six months from today.         A
    While taking the decision the aspects highlighted by this
    Court in the earlier decision needldss to say shall be kept
    in view."

      4. Despite the above judgmerit of this Court, most of the
                                                                     B
States have failed to implement the scheme and the directions
contained in the judgments of this Court. The matter remained
pending before this Court for a considerable time and various
orders passed by this Court directing implementation of the
scheme were not complied with. On 7th April, 2011, by a
detailed order, we had taken note of the intervening events and      C
the fact that a large number of States had not even implemented
the sci1eme and the directions contained in the judgments of
this Court. Before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against the
ccincerned authorities of the respective defaulting States, this     D
Court conside~ed it necessary to only require the presence of
officers in Col.Ir! and provided them with another opportunity to
ensure compliance of the directions issued by this Court.
Despite assurance of an effective implementation of the Court's
orders, nothing substantial was done within the time of six          E
weeks, granted by this Court vide its Order dated 7th April,
2011. Certain Interim Applications (l.A.s) were filed by some
of the States for ~xtension of time and in view of the assurance
given in court, this Court had also dispensed with the personal
appea~ance of the senior officers of those State Governments.        F
However, with some regret, we noticed that still a few states
had not complied with the directions of this Court and the casual
attitude of the State Government of these States was obvious
from their very conduct, inside and outside the Court. This
attitude c'>mpelled us to pass a very detailed Order on 30th         G
August, 2011, classifying the States into different categories.
The first category of the States had taken steps and even
awarded the contract for supplying HSRP. The second category
was of the States/U.T.s which had not followed the correct
procedure for selection and had approved all private vendors,
                                                                     H
    882       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A   with 'Type Approval Certificate' (TAC) from the Central
    Government, to affix the 'HSRP' at their own premises or at the
    Office of the RTO. The third category was of the defaulting
    States who had filed affidavits, assuring the Court of taking
    steps and finalising the tender allotment within the specified
s   dates. On the basis of the affidavits filed by them, they were
    granted further time and were required to file affidavits of
    compliance. The last category was of the States which had
    been persisting with the default and had not taken any effective
    steps to comply with the directions of this Court. Thus, vide
c   Order dated 30th August 2011 we had passed the following
    directions in relation to this category :

          "9. From the record before us, it is clear that there is
          apparent and intentional default on the part of the
          concerned officers of these defaulting States.
D         Consequently, we issue notice to show cause why
          proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be
          not initiated, if found guilty, why they be not punished in
          accordance with law and why exemplary costs, personally
          recoverable from the erring officers/officials, be not
E         imposed. Notice shall be issued to:

          Secretary (Transport) of the defaulting States.

          b. Commissioner, State Transport Authority of the
          respective States."
F
       5. Despite the above orders, a number of States failed to
  comply with the Court's directions as well as implement the
  provisions of the Act. In these circumstances, the Court was
  satisfied that there being willful violation of the orders of the
G Court, the default tantamount to contempt of Court.

       6. Vide order dated 13th October, 2011, the Court while
  dealing with I.A. No. 1O of 2011, besides issuing certain
  directions, also punished the officers of the defaulting State by
H imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and even imposed
  MANINDERJIT SINGH BITIA v. UNION OF INDIA &                 883
         ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the State of Haryana, since         A
it had failed to take any steps in furtherance to the previous
order. The matter remained pending, the States were directed
to invite tenders and sign agreements with the successful
bidders in accordance with the Rules and to complete the work
of affixation of HSRP in their entire State/Union Territory.          B
Thereafter, this Court again passed a very detailed order
dealing with the circumstance of each State on 8th December,
2011. All these orders, i.e., the Orders dated 30th August, 2011,
13th October, 2011 and 8th December, 2011 should be read
as integral part of this final order.                                 c
     7. In the Order dated 8th December, 2011, we had
directed the States to file affidavits of compliance and
undertakings that the implementation of the scheme and the
provisions of the Act, read in conjunction with the orders of this
Court, shall be completed within the specified timeframe. The         D
undertakings were to be filed within four weeks from 25th
November, 2011. Another significant direction contained in that
order was that all the States, except some of the States, i.e.,
States of Assam, Chhattisgarh, Haryana," Jharkhand, Madhya
Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab, Uttarakhand and Union Territory of           E
Lakshadweep, should complete the implementation of the
scheme by 31st March, 2012. States of Himachal Pradesh and
Nagaland were granted further time for completing the
implementation of the scheme in relation to old vehicles only
upto 15th June, 2012.                                                 F

      8. Despite specific orders of the Court, the States of
Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Tamil
Nadu, West Bengal and Union Territory of Lakshadweep have
failed to file the requisite affidavits and undertakings within the   G
time granted. The learned counsel for some of these states
justified the non-filing of the affidavit on different grounds like
that the Registry of the Court was closed for winter vacations
on the date when the period of four weeks for filing affidavit
 expired. This is factually incorrect inasmuch as the period of       H
      884    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A four weeks would expire on 24th December, 2011 as per our
  order dated 8th December, 2011. Though the Supreme Court
  closed for winter vacation on 18th December, 2011, the
   Registry was opened till 25th December, 2011. Therefore,
   nothing prevented these States/Union Territories from filing
B affidavits/undertakings within the stipulated lime i.e. 24th
  December, 2011. Secondly, the process of tenders had not
  been finalized by the States for one reason or the other and,
  therefore, they considered it unnecessary to file affidavits
  required by the Court's Order. We find these excuses without
c any substance. It was known to everybody as to when the Court
  was going to close and the affidavits could have been filed well
  in advance to 24th December, 2011. Even if the affidavits were
  not accepted on the re-opening of the Court after vacations, the
  counsel should have mentioned the matter before the Court,
D which was not done. The affidavits were to be filed stating what
  steps have been taken by the respective States and
  undertaking was to be given for compliance with the orders of
  the Court for implementation within the stipulated time. Both
  these steps were not dependant upon the completion of the
  tender process or other difficulties. The parties could have
E nevertheless filed applications, which, admittedly was not done.
  Therefore, we find that all these States have acted irresponsibly
  and with callousness.

        9. It should be clearly understood by the hierarchy of the
F State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the
  respective States that the Court's time is spent on these cases,
  that too, at the cost of regular cases pending in the Court. The
  orders of the Court are expected to be impiemented by the
  officers of the Government and the learned counsel appearing
G for the parties without default and with a sense of urgency.
  Though, we find no reason to grant further time to these states
  as no justifiable ground has been stated before us, however,
  in the interest of justice c.nd by way of last opportunity, we
  extend the period for filing of such affidavits and/or undertakings
H by two weeks from today, on pronouncement of this order. It



  •
 MANINDERJIT Slf\iGH BITTA v. UNION OF !NOIA &             885
        ORS .. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

shall be subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs by each       A
State to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, costs
being conditional.

      10. There are States which have, by and large,
implemented the scheme and have commenced the program
                                                                8
for fixation of HSRPs in their respective States. These States
are Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim,
Uttarakhand and l.Jnion Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
We appreciate the effort p•Jt by these states and would direct
that they should complete the entire program in all respects C
before 30th April, 2012 in their respective States.

      11. In furtherar1ce to our order dated 8th December, 2011,
learned Registrar, Judicial-II, has submitted his Report pointing
out that some of the states have not filed affidavits/undertakings.
They :1ave not taken effective steps for implementation of the D
scheme, in discharge of their statutory obligation and in
compliance with the orders of the Court as well. Having peru<>ed
the Report of the Registrar and the affidavits filed on be~alf of
different stC1tes, we issue the following directions:-
                                                                   E
      (a)   All States which have invited tenders, have
            completed the process of finalizing the s•Jccessful
            bidder and issued the Letter of Intent, out have not
            yet signed agreements with the successful bidder,
            shall sign &uch agreements within four weeks from
            today. These States are Assam, Bihar, Gujarat,         F"'
            Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Punjab,
            Tripura and Uttar Pradesh.

      (b)   The State~ which have so far not even finalized the
            tender process, they should do so, again, within four G
            weeks from today. Amongst others these States
            and Union Territories are Chhattisgarh, Madhya
            Prc.desh, Chandigarh, Delhi (NCT) and Puducherry.

      (c)   Installation of HSRP is a statutory command which      H
    886         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A                 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, but mandatory, for every
                  State to comply with the statutory provisions/orders
                  of this Court in terms of Article 129 of the
B                 Constitution of India, 1950. All states, therefore, are
                  mandated to fully implement the scheme of fixation
                  of HSRP in their entire state, positively by 30th
                  April, 2012, in relation to new vehicles and 15th
                  June, 2012 for old vehicles. We make it clear that
c                 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 particularly, the orders dated
                 30th August, 2011, 13th October, 2011, 8th
D                December, 2011 and this order, should be
                 implemented within the extended period without
                 default.

          (e)    In the event of default, concerned Secretary
E                (Transport)/Commissioner, State Transport
                 Authority and/or any other person or authority
                 responsible for such default shall be liable to be
                 proceeded against under the provisions of the
                 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
F
        12. We grant liberty to the petitioner and/or any other
  person to take out contempt proceedings, if now there is any
  non-compliance of the orders of this Court and the statutory duty
  imposed upon the authorities concerned with regard to
  implementation and completion of the scheme and process of
G fixation of HSRP, in any State/Union Territory.

       13. We cannot help but to notice the unwarranted conduct
  and willful disobedience of the orders of this Court by the State
  of Andhra Pradesh. This State was found to be a defaulter even
H in the earlier orders passed by this Court. In furtherance to our
  MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. UNION OF INDIA &                 887
         ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

order dated 8th December, 2011, an affidavit on behalf of the A
 State was filed on 2nd January, 2012, in this Court. This
affidavit has been filed by the Secretary (Transport),
Government of Andhra Pradesh. This State had not even
 initiated any action or process to implement the scheme, as
directed under the orders of this Court. To shirk its responsibility, B
it has been stated in this affidavit that after passing of the order
of this Court dated 8th December, 2011, the Government of
Andhra Pradesh reviewed the issue and issued an amendment
to its original Government Ord<:!r dated 8th March, 2011. Vide
its Government Order dated 24th December, 2011, the                  c
Government entrusted the work of implementation of the HSRP
in the State of Andhra Pradesh to the Andhra Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation. Strangely, the affidavit further
claims that the scheme of HSRP is being implemented
according to the direction issued by this Court. Still another D
affidavit was filed by the Transport Commissioner of the State
of Andhra Pradesh on identical lines.
     14. These affidavits or even the affidavits filed earlier on
behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh do not even remotely
suggest that any steps had been taken by the State for               E
implementing the scheme of HSRP in compliance with the
directions issued by this Court. We are unable to appreciate
this attitude of the State administration, with which they have
persisted, despite specific directions contained in the Order
dated 30th August, 2011 and even in the earlier orders passed        F
by this Court. Their conduct and behaviour has undermined the
authority of this Court as well as the dignity of justice.
      15. Consequently, we issue notice to show cause to Smt.
D.Lakshmi Parthasarathy, Principal Secretary (Transport,
Roads and Building Department), Andhra Pradesh and Shri             G
Hiralal Samaria, Transport Commissioner, State of Andhra
Pradesh to show cause, why they be not punished in
accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act
for violating the orders of this Court.
    16. The Registry shall maintain a separate file for the         H
    888      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2012] 1 S.C.R.


A   t.;Ontempt proceedings initiated against these defaulting officers
    of Andhra Pradesh.
       17. The State of West Bengal filed its aftidavit (dated 12th
  May, 2011) of partial implementation in two districts only, on
  24th May, 2011. Thereafter, no affidavit has been filed on behalf
B of this State. Despite orders of the Court dated 30th .August,
  2011, 13th September, 2011, 8th December, 2011 and this
  order, they have failed to file affidavit placing correct facts in
  regard to the further implementation of the scheme before this
  Court. In these circumstances and by way of last opportunity,
C we permit tne Secretary (Transport)/ Commissioner, State
  Transport Authority, West Bengal to file their respective
  affidavits within two weeks from today subject to payment of
  Rs.10,000'- as costs.
       18. Wherever we have imposed costs for non-compliance
D with the directions of this Co..irt, the same shall be paid by the
  State Governments at the first instance. We are of the
  considered view that the present cases are not the ones where
  the Court should permit the public exchequer to be burdened
  by payment of costs. In fact, the costs paid should be recovered
E from erring or defaulting officers/officials.
       19. The State of /\runachal Pradesh is again a State which
  has neither filed undertaking nor affidavit in terms of the orders
  of this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the State,
F however, submitted that they have already started the process
  and would be able to complete the implementation of the
  scheme within three months. According to the learned counsel,
  their predicament was that the successful tenderers had
  refused to deposit the requisite security amount as
  contemplated under the ten.is and conditions of the contract.
G Be that as it may, we have already granted extension of time,
  and we therefore, direct the State of Arunachal Pradesh now
  to implement the orders of this Court without fail within the time
  granted and subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs.
H         20. We make it clear that this order shall dispose of the
   MANINDERJIT SINGH BITIA v. UNION OF INDIA &               889
          ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

writ petition.                                                      A
       21. All the files that had oeen summoned by this Court for
 ensuring the complete implementation of the scheme shall now
 revert back to tr.e respective courts for their disposal in
 accordance with law. Some of the learned counsel appearing
 for the parties jefore us had argued that because of certain B
 directions passed by the Courts concerned in these ongoing
cases, the concerned States may not be able to finally
 implement the scheme within the time bound schedule. We
request the concerned High Courts to deal with such matters
on priority keeping in view the afore-stated directions and C
orders. We further give liberty to the parties whose petitions are
pending before this Court to make a mention before the
concerned Bench for expeditious disposal. We have no doubt
in our mind that such request of the petitioners would be
examined on its own merits by the Hon'ble Judges in the larger D
interest of national security.
     22. Since all aspects of this matter stand finally concluded
vide our orders dated 30th August, 2011, 13th October, 2011
and 8th December, 2011 and ultimately by this Order, we see
no reason to keep this petition pending on the Board of this        E
Court.
     23. Consequently, all I.As., contempt petitions in Writ
Petition No. 510 of 2005 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 510 of
2005 stand finally disposed of with no order as to costs.
                                                                    F
    24. However, SLP(C) No. 24497 of 2011, SLP(C) No.
13485 of 2011, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 162 of 2010, SLP(C)
Nos. 13630-13631 of 2011 and SLP(C) No. 1894-1897 of
2012 shall now revert back to their respective Courts.
      25. Application for impleadment as respondent filed by Ms.    G
Shimnit Utsch India Pvt. Ltd.,•one of the successful tenderers
in the matter relating to State of Maharashtra stands dismissed
in view of this final order.

RP.                                       Matters disposed of.      H