Back
Zooom Engineering LLP Challenges Monopolistic HSRP Tender Conditions; Supreme Court Issues Notice
In a significant that could reshape how (HSRPs) are supplied to millions of vehicles across India, the on , issued notice to the and multiple states on a petition filed by Zooom Engineering LLP. The approved HSRP manufacturer alleges that state governments are using and an " " to exclude ‑approved manufacturers from the market, creating that force vehicle owners to pay exorbitant prices.
A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe passed the order, condoning the delay in refiling the and issuing notice on .
The Licensing Maze: Approved Manufacturers Locked Out
, explicitly allows HSRPs for existing vehicles to be issued by , vehicle manufacturers, or approved by the state government . Zooom Engineering, which holds a valid under and is listed on the VAHAN portal, claims it has been effectively excluded from the market through two distinct state‑level mechanisms.
Under the , states impose conditions that appear insurmountable for most approved manufacturers: a minimum turnover of ₹100 crore, five years’ experience in one state along with one year in at least five states, completion of six , an of ₹1 crore, and a of ₹5 crore. The petitioner contends that these conditions are tailor‑made to favour a handful of players, directly contradicting , which only requires six months of experience.
Under the , vehicle manufacturers are given sole authority to appoint HSRP suppliers—even though OEMs themselves do not manufacture or affix the plates. The result, the petition argues, is that only four or five manufacturers operate across the country despite nearly 25 manufacturers being approved by the .
“Due to and exclusion of approved manufacturers like the Petitioner, the public is made to pay more than double the price for the number plates, resulting in huge financial loss to the public and windfall gains to a few manufacturers,” the plea states.
Pricing Inequality: ₹400 vs ₹800 per Plate
A core grievance highlighted in the petition is the stark pricing disparity. The petitioner claims it can supply HSRPs for around ₹400 per plate, yet vehicle owners are being charged approximately ₹800. Relying on a statement by the Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways in the —that the government neither derives revenue from HSRP sales nor regulates their prices—the petitioner argues that the current system is left entirely to the mercy of a closed market.
Extrapolating the impact, the petition notes that there are roughly 10 crore vehicles registered before , that require HSRPs. At a difference of ₹400 per plate, the alleged exclusion of approved manufacturers is said to cause a public loss of approximately ₹4,000 crore.
Constitutional Challenge and Court’s First Response
, appearing for Zooom Engineering, submitted that “confining manufacturing of only to Vehicle Manufacturers and such others, excluding Approved , could be against , enabling .” He brought the bench’s attention to Rule 50 and the state notifications that restrict supply to vehicle manufacturers.
The petitioner has invoked Articles 14 (right to equality) and 19(1)(g) (freedom to practise any occupation) of the Constitution, arguing that statutory rights cannot be curtailed through or . It has sought uniform guidelines for the selection of HSRP manufacturers across all states and the quashing of notifications issued by at least 13 states and union territories that allegedly delegate OEMs with the power to authorise HSRP supply for existing vehicles.
The , while not granting any at this stage, directed that notice be issued to all respondents, on . The case will now be heard further, with the central legal question being whether states can effectively nullify the by imposing conditions that exclude central‑government‑approved manufacturers from participating in the HSRP market for pre‑2019 vehicles.
