Zooom Engineering LLP, a High Security Registration Plate (HSRP) manufacture approved by the Central Government, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the exclusion of approved manufacturers from supplying and affixing HSRPs on vehicles registered before April 1, 2019.

The company has alleged that State Governments are restricting the market to a handful of private manufacturers through tender conditions and the “OEM model”, creating monopolies and cartelisation and forcing vehicle owners to pay higher prices for HSRPs.

“Further and most importantly, due to cartelisation 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.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice on the petition returnable on October 5, 2026.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal for Zooom Engineering referred to Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and State notifications which confine HSRP supply to vehicle manufacturers, and submitted that confining HSRP manufacturing to vehicle manufacturers and excluding approved licence plate manufacturers could be against justifiable policy considerations and affect equitable distribution.

Rule 50(1)(v) deals with who can issue HSRPs. For existing vehicles, the provision allows the plates to be issued by the registering authority, vehicle manufacturers or their dealers, or licence plate manufacturers or their dealers approved by the State Government or Union Territory Administration. The petitioner's case is that, despite this framework, States have effectively excluded approved licence-plate manufacturers through the OEM model and restrictive tender conditions.

Zooom Engineering has claimed that it holds a valid Type Approval Certificate under Rule 126 of the 1989 Rules and is listed on the VAHAN portal as an approved HSRP manufacturer. It says that it paid ₹14 lakh as a mandatory testing fee and its product underwent testing under Automotive Industry Standard (AIS)-159 before the Type Approval Certificate was granted.

The petition challenges the manner in which States are implementing the HSRP scheme for old vehicles. According to the petitioner, some States have adopted a tender model while others have adopted the OEM model.

Under the tender model, States impose conditions such as a minimum turnover of ₹100 crore, five years' experience in one State and one year's experience in at least five States, completion of six Certificate of Production (COP) cycles, an earnest money deposit of ₹1 crore and a performance bank guarantee of ₹5 crore.

The petitioner specifically cites the Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh tender conditions and alleges that these conditions are tailor-made to exclude manufacturers that otherwise possess the required Type Approval Certificate. It contends that Rule 124 of the CMVR prescribes only six months of experience, and States cannot insist on a higher period of experience. The petition.

Under the OEM model, the petition says, vehicle manufacturers appoint a single exclusive HSRP manufacturer even though the OEMs do not manufacture HSRPs and do not themselves affix the plates. The petitioner claims that only four or five HSRP manufacturers operate across the country despite nearly 25 manufacturers being approved by the Central Government.

The petitioner has also raised the issue of pricing. It claims that an HSRP supplied to an OEM at approximately ₹210 is being sold to vehicle owners for prices approaching ₹800. It relies on a statement made by the Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways in the Rajya Sabha that the Government neither derives revenue from HSRP sales nor regulates their prices.

The petitioner has claimed that HSRPs can be supplied by it and other approved manufacturers for ₹400, while vehicle owners are being charged around ₹800. It highlights that there are approximately 10 crore vehicles registered before April 1, 2019 which require HSRPs, and estimates that the exclusion of approved manufacturers is causing a loss of about ₹4,000 crore to the public.

The plea contends that statutory rights of approved manufacturers cannot be curtailed through executive action and private arrangements without statutory sanction, and States cannot restrict the supply and affixation of HSRPs for pre-April 1, 2019 vehicles to a limited class of manufacturers.

The petitioner has alleged that its exclusion violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and is contrary to Rule 50(v) of the CMVR. It has sought recognition as an eligible HSRP manufacturer and supplier throughout India, uniform guidelines for selection of HSRP manufacturers by States and Union Territories, and directions restraining the states from excluding it from the supply and affixation of HSRPs.

The petitioner has also sought quashing of the notifications/orders issued by Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Daman & Diu, Delhi, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Sikkim, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, to the extent that they allegedly give OEMs the power to authorise HSRP manufacturers to supply and fix plates on existing vehicles.

Appearance –

For Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Susheel Joseph Cyriac, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Aniyan Joseph, Adv. Mr. Debdeep Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Abhay Singh Yadav, Adv.

Case no. – Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 33721/2026

Case Title – Zooom Engineering LLP v. Union of India & Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Order