The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the owners of vehicles –– carrying Haryana’s old registration series –– need not pay while switching over “HR” series even if the registration number is preferential.
Allowing a bunch of petitions against the State of Haryana and other respondents, Justice Jagmohan Bansal asserted the authority concerned “may proceed for replacement of old series registration marks with “HR” series marks, however, without charging fee even for preferential registration marks”.
The direction came as Justice Bansal declared invalid a Haryana government memo dated November 8, 2019, which had withdrawn an earlier clarification and required owners of old registration numbers to pay prescribed charges if they wanted a preferential number in the new series.
What it means
In simple terms, the order means that vehicle owners holding old non-HR Haryana registration numbers can be shifted to the “HR” series without paying afresh for retaining an equivalent preferential number. The dispute arose after the State first issued a memo on May 28, 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”.
But the respondent withdrew the letter dated May 28, 2019, vide the impugned memo 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”.
State’s stand
The State argued before the court that vehicle owners had a right to obtain numbers in the new “HR” series, but could not claim a preferential number free of cost. It maintained that old series had been scrapped. As such, the owners were bound to apply for new numbers, and that the government was competent to issue circulars or memos to clarify ambiguities.
The State added the owners were supposed to pay for preferential number. “The State Government has been allotted group of letters HR, whereas the petitioners are having registration marks other than commencing with HR. The old series have been scrapped, thus, petitioners cannot be permitted to continue with old numbers. They are bound to apply for new numbers,” it was added.
The verdict
Justice Bansal observed the petitioners were holding registration marks beginning with letters other than “HR”, issued before the Central Government allotted Haryana the “HR” group letters under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Examining the statutory scheme, Justice Bansal held that the Central Government alone had the power under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to frame rules regarding validity and renewal of registration marks. Referring to various provisions of law, the court observed: It is evident beyond the pale of doubt that Central Government has exclusive power to make rules with respect to validity of registration mark and its renewal.”
Justice Bansal added that the State government had not framed rules under the relevant statutory provisions but had instead issued memos “without any provision in the 1988 Act empowering the State to issue such circulars/memos”.
Holding the 2019 memo legally unsustainable, Justice Bansal asserted it was “bad in the eye of law on the ground of jurisdiction”.
The court observed that the State had consistently taken the position that old registration marks should be replaced by the new series and was empowered to do so under the Act. However, in view of earlier court orders and official instructions, it could not impose charges for such replacement.
“The State can replace old series marks, however, in view of orders of this Court (in earlier rounds of litigation) and instructions issued by the Central and State Government, it cannot charge any fee,” Justice Bansal asserted, while allowing the petitions.
