The State Government lacks the jurisdiction to levy fees for the mandatory replacement of old motor vehicle registration marks with new series numbers, as the exclusive power to regulate registration marks and their renewal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is vested in the Central Government.

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226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of circular/memo dated 08.11.2019 whereby respondent has withdrawn its earlier memo dated 28.05.2019 and asked the vehicle owners holding old registration number to pay charges for preferential number.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