IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16092 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL MANAF, EDAPILLY HOUSE, P.O.KARUPPADANNA, THRISSUR DIST.REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER'S POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MOHAMMED SHIHAB, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, EDAPILLY HOUSE, P.O.KARUPPADANNA, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJESH SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THE OFFICE OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THE OFFICE OF SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.16092 of 2011 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 16.4.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 7.6.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 8.6.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 25.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 16092 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who purchased a motor car on 16.4.2011 has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- i) issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash amended Rule 95 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, by declaring the same as unconstitutional. ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P2 in accordance with law at the earliest. iii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to consider Exhibit P3 in accordance with law at the earliest. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner purchased a brand new motor car from the dealer at Thrissur on 16.4.2011. The said vehicle was temporarily registered on that day itself as can be seen from Ext.P1. The certificate of temporary registration was valid for a period of 14 days ending with 29.4.2011. The petitioner did not produce the vehicle for registration before the expiry of the period of 14 days. More than a month after the validity of Ext.P1 temporary certificate of registration expired, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation dated 7.6.2011 before the Regional Transport Officer, Thrissur for extending the the validity period of the certificate of temporary registration, so as to enable the petitioner to apply for the reservation of a fancy registration mark. On W.P.(C) No.16092 of 2011 2 the next day, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 8.6.2011 before the Sub Regional Transport Officer, Irinjalakuda seeking the very same relief, though the petitioner's vehicle was temporarily registered by the registering authority, Thrissur viz., the Regional Transport Officer, Thrissur. This writ petition is filed contending that as the validity of the certification of temporary registration has expired, the petitioner is not in a position to apply for the reservation of a fancy registration number, in view of the failure on the part of the respondents to extend the validity of the certificate of temporary registration. 3. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, Sri.K.S.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not pressing relief No.1 and is only seeking a consideration of Exts.P2 and P3 representations. Section 40 of the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates that subject to the provisions of sections 42, 43 and 60, every owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be registered by a registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept. Section 43 stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in section 40, the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily W.P.(C) No.16092 of 2011 3 registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark. Sub-section (2) of section 43 states that a registration made under section 43 shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month and shall not be renewable. The proviso to sub-section (2) of section 43 however carves out an exception in cases where the motor vehicle so registered is a chasis to which a body has not been attached. Rule 94(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules stipulates that a temporary certificate of registration shall be in Form “CR.TEM”. Though no period of validity is prescribed in rule 94, when the petitioner's vehicle was temporarily registered, the registering authority certified that the vehicle has been temporarily registered and the registration is valid from 16.4.2011 to 29.4.2011. In other cases which have come up before me also, I have noticed that temporary registration is being generally granted only for a period of 14 days by the various registering authorities in the State of Kerala. However, in view of the stipulation in section 43 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a certificate of temporary registration made under sub-section (1) of section 43 of the Act can have a validity of only one month and is not renewable except in cases where the motor vehicle so registered is a chasis to which a body has not W.P.(C) No.16092 of 2011 4 been attached. 4. It is evident from the contents of Exts.P2 and P3 representations and also the averments in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that the petitioner did not produce the vehicle for registration with a permanent registration mark within the period of 30 days stipulated in section 43(2) of the Act. It was after the maximum period of one month for which a temporary registration is valid and after the expiry of Ext.P1 certificate of temporary registration that Exts.P2 and P3 representations were filed seeking extension of the validity of the certificate of temporary registration for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to apply for the reservation of a fancy registration number. In view of the stipulations contained in section 43(2) of the Act, the respondents could not have granted that request and extended the validity of the certificate of temporary registration. Such being the situation, the relief sought for by the petitioner in Exts.P3 and P4 cannot be granted. Consequently, this Court cannot direct the respondents to consider Exts.P2 and P3 representations. The petitioner who did not get his vehicle permanently registered within time cannot seek or be granted a renewal of the certificate of temporary registration beyond the period fixed in section 43(2) of the Act for the purpose of reservation of a fancy registration number. W.P.(C) No.16092 of 2011 5 I accordingly hold that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.