Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 78181
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jagmohan Bansal, J
Arun Kumar Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CWP-7593-2023 | CWP-16927-2025 | CWP-17080-2025 | CWP-29158-2024 | CWP-2022-2022 | CWP-1069-2020 | CWP-1418-2020 | CWP-1816-2020 | CWP-9924-2020 | CWP-10048-2020 | CWP-30294-2022 | CWP-9664-2023
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - State Government Authority and Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction - State Government cannot frame rules or issue memos regarding matters exclusively reserved for the Central Government under Section 64 of the 1988 Act regarding registration mark validity. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners holding vehicles with old registration numbers challenged a circular dated 08.11.2019 which withdrew an earlier policy allowing free replacement of old series numbers with new series. The State insisted on charging a fee for replacement if the holder desired to keep a preferential number, despite the old series marks being rendered obsolete by the new "HR" series allotment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the State can mandate the shift from old series to new "HR" series pursuant to the Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot charge a fee for such mandatory administrative replacement, even for preferential numbers, as the respondent had previously committed to free replacement in its earlier memo and before the court.
Issues: Whether the State Government has the jurisdiction to charge fees for replacing old registration numbers with new ones and whether the circular withdrawing free replacement is valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The Central Government holds exclusive power under Section 64 to prescribe rules for registration marks, and the State Government cannot overstep this by charging fees for administrative compliance required by the Act's transition.
Result: Petitions allowed; Impugned memo declared invalid.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abhinav Aggarwal, Rishabh Aggarwal, Himanshu Raj, Surender Dhull, A.V.S. Parmar, S.K. Aggarwal, R.D. Yadav
For the Respondents: Akshit Pathania, Shalini Atri
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context and background of the dispute regarding registration marks. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding jurisdiction and fee charges. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. central government's exclusive authority to regulate registration marks under the 1988 act. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. state government orders and prior court directions regarding registration series replacement. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. final invalidation of the impugned administrative circular. (Para 23 , 24) |
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Advocate and
Mr. Rishabh Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-7593-2023.
Mr. Himanshu Raj, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-16927-2025, CWP-17080-2025
and CWP-29158-2024 (Through V.C.).
Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-2022-2022.
Mr. A.V.S. Parmar, Advocate and
Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-1069-2020, CWP-1418-2020
CWP-1816-2020, CWP-9924-2020 and CWP-10048-2020.
Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner in
CWP-30294-2022 and CWP-9664-2023.
Mr. Akshit Pathania, AAG, Haryana.
Ms. Shalini Atri, Senior Panel Counsel
for the respondent UOI in CWP-16927-2025,
CWP-17080-2025 and CWP-29158-2024.
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-7593-2023.
2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of circular/memo dated 08.11.2019 whereby respondent has withdrawn its earlier memo dated 28.05.2019 and asked the vehicle owners holding old registration number to pay charges for preferential number.
3. This is third round of litigation. The petitioner is having vehicle make Hyundai i-10 bearing Registration No.HNM-9 issued by Registering Authority, Haryana. The Union Legislature w.e.f. 14.10.1988 introduced Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘1988 Act’). Section 41(7) of 1988 Act provides that registration mark issued prior to commencement of the 1988 Act shall remain valid for 15 years from the date of certificate. The vehicle owner would be free to apply for renewal of old registration mark. The respondent issued circular dated 21.11.2008 mandating that no registration mark of old series shall be permitted to be retained by any vehicle owner. Retention of old series number is not allowed. The vehicle owners approached this Court and matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court which vide order dated 12.08.2010 disposed of CWP-6732-2010. The petition was disposed of on the basis of circular issued by State Government wherein it was clarified that registration marks of old series may continue to be retained.
4. The matter with respect to retention of old series numbers or transfer to new vehicles came up for consideration before learned Single Judge of this Court. The petition filed by Parmender Singh Khasa was allowed and order dated 20.01.2017 passed by respondent was set aside. The State preferred intra-court appeal and matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court which vide order dated 23.05.2019 made it clear that old registration numbers would be replaced with new numbers of same series subject to availability and without charges.
5. The respondent issued memo dated 28.05.2019 clarifying that registration mark under old series would be allowed to be replaced with registration mark under any new series without charging any fee. The respondent by impugned memo has withdrawn its letter dated 28.05.2019 and formed an opinion that if any vehicle owner wants a preferential number, he will have to make payment as prescribed despite having preferential number in old series.
6. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submit that respondent despite makin
