IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 4037 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SIDHEEK.M., MAMMU HAJI, "PRESHYA" 2/678 B, NEAR ASHIRVAD LAWNS, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-6. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR SMT.G.VIDYA RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE AND TRANSPORTATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, NORTHERN REGION, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 6. THE CHAIRMAN, V.K.C., RUBBER INDUSTRIES, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW FOR R6 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.4037/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION (FORM 20). EXT.P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER RULE 95 OF THE KERALA MOTOR VEHICLE RULES. EXT.P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.30/1/2008. EXT.P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.30/1/2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 4037 OF 2008 E ==================== Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The complaint in this writ petition is regarding the alleged non acceptance of the petitioner's application for allotment of fancy number. According to the petitioner, while declining to accept his application, the application made by the 6th respondent was accepted and he was allotted a fancy number. It is in this background the writ petition has been filed seeking consideration of the complaint made by the petitioner. 2. Learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that on the complaint of the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Transport Commissioner. In the enquiry, it was found that the fancy number was allotted on 29/1/2008, and that, as on that date, only the application of the 6th respondent was available with the respondents. It is stated that though the petitioner attempted to file an application earlier, that was defective for want of identity proof and it is therefore that the application was declined to be accepted. 3. From the facts as stated above, it is clear that the petitioner had not made a valid application in time and therefore the respondents WPC 4037/08 :2 : refusal to accept the defective application of the petitioner cannot be faulted. If so, on the date of allotment dated 29/1/2008, the only application of the 6th respondent was available and the allotment made on that basis to the 6th respondent also cannot be faulted. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp