THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 5034 OF 2011 ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the third respondent dated 3.2.2011 reserving Registration No.AP16BT 0001 and consequential registration in favour of the fourth respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Case of the petitioner may be stated as follows: Petitioner is permanent resident of Nuzvidu and he purchased Tata Safari Dicor-2010 model and made an application on 3.2.2011 for reservation of Registration No.AP16 BT 0001 in series going to be opened, in requisite forms by paying requisite fee and enclosing documents. On 3.2.2011, petitioner came to know that the fourth respondent also made an application for reservation of the same number for its Scorpio VLX vehicle by enclosing fake residential proof, and as the said address does not exist, the petitioner raised a dispute and made an objection petition to the second respondent. Petitioner is prepared to participate in the auction, if any, conducted in the event of competition. But, the authorities unilaterally proceeded in assigning the said number in favour of the fourth respondent by providing reservation, ignoring objection of the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. The respondents 2 and 4 filed separate counter affidavits denying the averments in the writ affidavit. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the fourth respondent is not a resident of Nuzvid and therefore allotment of the said fancy number to the fourth respondent is contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules made thereunder. 6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 contended that since the petitioner has not participated in the bid process, allotment of the said fancy number cannot be challenged by him. 7. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent stated that in respect of the same cause of action, the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the second respondent on 3.2.2011 through proper channel, which was received and acknowledged. 8. In view of the above submissions, the petitioner cannot be permitted to prosecute two parallel proceedings in respect of the same cause of action. Therefore, the second respondent is directed to take appropriate decision on the petition dated 3.2.2011 filed by the petitioner treating it as a statutory appeal and dispose of the same after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the fourth respondent. 9. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 17.11.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 5034 OF 2011 17.11.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 5034 OF 2011 DATED 17.11.2011 Between: Venkata Pratap Appa Rao Meka …Petitioner And The Commissioner, A.P. Transport Department & others …Respondents