TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of new High Security Registration Plates (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. 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 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 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 Bench finally disposed of the writ petitions vide its order dated 30th November, 2004 reported in Association of Registration Plate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt. Before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against the concerned authorities of the respective defaulting States, this Court considered it necessary to require only presence of officers in Court 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 weeks granted by this Court vide its Order dated 7th April, 2011. Certain Interim Applications (I.A.s) were filed by some of the States for extension of time and in view of the assurance given in court, this Court had also dispensed with the personal appearance of the senior officers of those State Governments. 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 compelled us to pass a very detailed Order on 30th August, 2011 classifying the States into different categories. The first category of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;Request for Proposals' was prepared only on 28th April, 2011 and the notice inviting tender was published on 12th May, 2011. Pre-bid meeting was held and amendments to the terms of the tender were made on 30th June, 2011. The constituted committee held a meeting thereafter and apprised the concerned of the prequalification bids. On 30th August, 2011, the bids were received and evaluated. The technical bids were opened on 5th September, 2011 and financial bids were to be opened thereafter in the month of September 2011 itself which, unfortunately, have not been opened till date and the tender has not been awarded to any bidder. 7. Let us now examine the conduct of the State and its officers, responsible for not carrying out the directions of this Court. It is undisputable from the record produced before us that initially the steps were taken by the State of Haryana in the year 2002 which could not be finalised because of court's intervention and the said challenge was finally dismissed and all controversies came to an end by the Order of this Court dated 30th November, 2004. Admittedly, from the year 2004 till 2011, for a long period of seven years, no steps were take....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st suo moto, is invoked by the courts sparingly and in compelling circumstances, as it is one of the foremost duty of the courts to ensure compliance of its orders. The law relating to contempt is primarily dissected into two main heads of jurisdiction under the Indian Law: (a) Criminal Contempt, and (b) Civil Contempt. It is now well settled and explained principle under the Indian contempt jurisdiction that features, ingredients, procedure, attendant circumstances of the case and the quantum of punishment are the relevant and deciphering factors. Section 12 of the 1971 Act deals with the contempt of court and its punishment while Section 15 deals with cognizance of criminal contempt. Civil contempt would be willful breach of an undertaking given to the court or willful disobedience of any judgment or order of the court, while criminal contempt would deal with the cases where by words, spoken or written, signs or any matter or doing of any act which scandalises, prejudices or interferes, obstructs or even tends to obstruct the due course of any judicial proceedings, any court and the administration of justice in any other manner. Under the English Law, the distinction between crim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te any schedule, then it must be adhered to. Whenever there are obstructions or difficulties in compliance with the orders of the court, least that is expected of the Government Department or its functionaries is to approach the court for extension of time or clarifications, if called for. But, where the party neither obeys the orders of the court nor approaches the court making appropriate prayers for extension of time or variation of order, the only possible inference in law is that such party disobeys the orders of the court. In other words, it is intentionally not carrying out the orders of the court. Flagrant violation of the court's orders would reflect the attitude of the concerned party to undermine the authority of the courts, its dignity and the administration of justice. In the case of Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra ((1995) 2 SCC 584), this Court held that 'judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform, viz., to oversee that all individuals and institutions including the executive and the legislature act within the framework of not only the law but also the fundamental law of the land. This duty is apart from the function of adjudicating the disputes between t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n-obedience by a passive and dormant conduct leads to the same result. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the Judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs (refer T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad's case (2006) 5 SCC 1). The proceedings before the highest court of the land in a public interest litigation, attain even more significance. These are the cases which come up for hearing before the court on a grievance raised by the public at large or public spirited persons. The State itself places matters before the Court for determination which would fall, statutorily or otherwise, in the domain of the executive authority. It is where the State and its instrumentalities have failed to discharge its statutory functions or have acted adversely to the larger public interest that the courts are called upon to interfere in exercise of their ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st and within stipulated period. 14. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is undisputed that for years together the State of Haryana has failed to comply with the directions of this Court and implement the scheme. It has not only caused prejudice to the public at large but has even undermined the dignity of this Court. The attitude of the State of Haryana and the respective officers has been lackadaisical and of willful disregard. Despite repeated orders they have failed to take effective steps and whatever steps were taken the same are not in conformity with law. The repeated Orders of this Court have failed to bring any results from the recalcitrant State. The repeated opportunities and extension of time did not help in expeditious progress in the matter. On the contrary, there is apparent disobedience of the Orders of this Court and no compliance with the Orders of this Court, by their completely passive and dormant behaviour. This behaviour, besides causing serious problems in the effective implementation of statutory scheme, has even undermined the dignity of this Court and impinged upon the basic rule of law. At the cost of repetition, we may notice that the....