Petitioner challenged an order cancelling his vehicle registration mark due to duplication. Court held the cancellation was a correction of error and dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner could avail the offered new series.
Petition dismissed holding the cancellation of registration mark was a correction of error.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P. No.4121 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.4121 of 2012 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 22.5.2012
Mohan Lal PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:Shri R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.Sushma Chopra, Additional A.G. Haryana.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
This petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 8.2.2012 Annexure P-2 by which the registration mark affixed to the vehicle of the petitioner has been ordered to be cancelled with an offer to the petitioner to retain the same mark, but in the new series, subject to deposit of Rs.75,000/- which is the requirement of the policy existing today. The petitioner was allotted registration No.HR31D-0005 in the year 2004. It was subsequently discovered that this mark had already been given to one Baljit Singh son of Sher Singh in the year 2000 and the error was detected when said Baljit Singh moved the registration authorities for retention of the same very number against a newly purchased vehicle. This led to
C.W.P. No.4121 of 2012 -2-
the passing of the impugned order which has now been challenged by the petitioner to say that this impugned order suffers from arbitrariness as he has been using this mark since 2003 and could not be cancelled.
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the petition. The respondents have merely corrected the error which had occurred due to inadvertence and have brought the situation in conformity with law, as no two vehicles can be permitted to have the same mark of registration. The petitioner, if desirous of having the same mark of a new series, is at liberty to avail himself the offer given by the respondents in the impugned order.
No ground to interfere.
Dismissed.
May 22, 2012 GD
(MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's vehicle registration mark due to duplication is arbitrary.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to retain the cancelled registration mark.
Mohan Lal
State of Haryana
MAHESH GROVER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
