The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the State of Haryana cannot demand any fee from vehicle owners while converting old registration numbers to the present “HR” series—even where owners seek to retain a “preferential” or even fancy number. The court has also clarified that such regulatory control lies with the Central Government under the Motor Vehicles Act, and not with the State through executive memos.What the High Court directedAllowing petitions challenging a 2019 Haryana government memo, Justice Jagmohan Bansal held that authorities “may proceed for replacement of old series registration marks with ‘HR’ series marks, however, without charging fee even for preferential registration marks”.Why the case aroseThe issue began when Haryana first issued a clarification in May 2019 stating that old registration marks could be replaced with new series numbers without any additional charge.Related news: Switching to ‘HR’ series: High Court says no fee for ‘preferential’ vehicle registration numbersHowever, this was later withdrawn through a November 2019 memo, which changed the position and required vehicle owners—if they wanted a preferential number in the new “HR” series—to pay prescribed charges, even if they already had an equivalent preferential number in the old series.The State defended the move on the ground that the old registration series had been scrapped after allocation of the “HR” code to Haryana under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It argued that owners must apply afresh for new numbers and comply with applicable fees for special registration marks.What the court foundThe court rejected the State’s reasoning and noted that the statutory power regarding validity and renewal of registration marks lies exclusively with the Central Government. In clear terms, the judgment records: “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.”The court further observed that Haryana had not framed any rules under the Act and had instead relied on executive memos “without any provision in the 1988 Act empowering the State to issue such circulars/memos”.On this basis, the 2019 memo was declared legally unsustainable and described as “bad in the eye of law on the ground of jurisdiction”.Why the ruling mattersThe judgment draws a clear legal boundary: States can implement administrative changes in registration systems, but they cannot impose financial conditions unless specifically empowered under law. The Court also emphasised that once the State itself had adopted a policy of replacing old series marks with the “HR” series, it could not convert that exercise into a fee-based mechanism through an executive withdrawal of earlier instructions.Wider impact: Legacy registrations from undivided Punjab also coveredThe ruling has an extended implication for vehicles originally registered in undivided Punjab prior to the State Reorganisation, and which later came to fall within present-day Haryana. In simple terms, if a vehicle carries an old registration number allotted before Haryana adopted the “HR” code system—even if it dates back to the pre-Reorganisation period—and it is now within Haryana’s jurisdiction, its conversion into the “HR” series cannot be treated as a fresh, chargeable allotment.Such owners are entitled to migration into the “HR” series without being asked to pay any fee, even for retaining an equivalent preferential registration number. The court’s reasoning treats this as a continuity of registration identity, not a new commercial allotment triggered by administrative restructuring of states or registration series.In essenceThe High Court has struck down monetisation of a compulsory administrative migration, holding that shifting old vehicle registration marks into the “HR” series is a statutory transition—not a fee-generating opportunity for the State.