SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(P&H) 118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.
Heman Rawat - Petitioner 
Versus 
State of Haryana and Others – Respondents
CWP-10163 of 2026 (O&M)
Decided On : 06-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Nissim Aggarwal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Akshit Pathania, AAG, Haryana.

JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. 

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent No.3 to issue registration certificate (for short “RC”) with respect to preferential allotment No.HR-22V-0041 in e-auction.

2. The petitioner is owner of vehicle make Skoda Slavia 1.5 TSI AT bearing registration number HR-70-G-6174. He successfully participated in e-auction for allotment of preferential registration number No. HR-22-V-0041 on 24.12.2025. He visited office of respondent No.3 on 20.03.2026 for procedural formalities. He was asked to visit the office on 24.03.2026. Respondent No.3 on 24.03.2026 informed him that 90 days had lapsed since the auction, thus, his allotment stood cancelled.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that 21st 22nd and 23rd March’ 2026 were non-working days. As there was no working in the office of respondent from 21st to 23rd March, thus, petitioner approached within 90 days on 24.03.2026.

4. Learned State counsel submits that as per Rule 33D(8) of The Haryana Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993 (for short ‘1993 Rules’), petitioner was supposed to get the registration mark assigned to eligible motor vehicle within 90 days. The petitioner approached respondent on 24.03.2026. A period of 90 days has already expired, thus, preferential registration mark could not be assigned to any vehicle.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. The petitioner concededly was allotted preferential number on 24.03.2025. He was supposed to produce any vehicle for utilising the preferential number. As per Rule 33D(8) of 1993 Rules, the petitioner was supposed to produce any vehicle by 23.03.2026. Office of respondent was closed on 23.03.2026. It was closed even on 21st and 22nd March 2026. Rule 33D(8) of 1993 Rules read as:

“Time period for assigning registration mark:- It shall not be a requirement for any bidder to have a motor vehicle to be eligible for registration in his name prior to participation in the e-auction. However, upon successfully having won a registration mark in an e-auction bid, the bidder shall have to get the registration mark assigned to an eligible motor vehicle within ninety days, failing which the allotment of his registration mark shall be automatically cancelled. In case of such a cancellation no refund shall be given to the bidder.”

7. As per Section 8 of The Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898 (as applicable to State of Haryana), if any office is closed on the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day. Section 8 of The Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898 (as applicable to State of Haryana) reads as:

“8. Where, by any Punjab Act, any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any Court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the Court of office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open.”

8. Case of petitioner is squarely covered by aforesaid Section. The petitioner approached authorities on 24.03.2026 because office was closed from 21st to 23rd March 2026. He approached authorities within 90 days from the date of allotment. The respondent was duty bound to honour allotment of preferential number. There was no violation of Rule 33D(8) of 1993 Rules on the part of petitioner.

9. In the wake of aforesaid discussion and findings, the petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top