IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 176 of 2010(V) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MARIYAMMA ABRAHAM, W/O. IYPE, AGED 51, NEDUMPARAMBIL, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.S.JAYAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM-2. 2. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-2. 3. POPULAR HYUNDAI, POPULAR WORLD PVT. LTD., SASTRI ROAD, THADATHIL BUILDING, KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.176 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 5th January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner purchased a motor car from the third respondent. She had applied to the second respondent for the allotment of a fancy number. By Ext.P4 order passed on 26.11.2009, the number KL-05-AA-4311 was alloted to the petitioner. It appears the third respondent got the vehicle registered that day itself, but, the registration number alloted was KL-05-AA-4306. The petitioner thereupon declined to take delivery of the vehicle. She thereafter filed Ext.P5 representation before the first respondent seeking cancellation of the existing registration and registration of her vehicle with the number alloted by Ext.P4 order. This writ petition was thereafter filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to cancel the registration proceedings already done without the knowledge of the petitioner and to register the vehicle with Registration Number KL-5-AA 4311 and deliver it to the petitioner forthwith. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Ist respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P5 representation as expeditiously as possible.” WP(C).No.176/2010 2 2. The petitioner has not been able to point out any provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which entitles her to seek cancellation of the registration already effected and to have her vehicle re-registered in the State of Kerala itself with the number reserved for her in Ext.P4. Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority or other prescribed authority to suspend the certificate of registration of a vehicle if it is in such a condition that its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public or the vehicle fails to comply with the requirements of the Act and Rules made thereunder or the vehicle has been or is being used for hire or reward without a valid permit for such use. Section 54 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to cancel the registration of a vehicle the registration of which has been suspended under Section 53 where the suspension has continued without interruption for not less than six months. The only other contingency in which the registration once granted to a motor vehicle can be cancelled is where the vehicle has been destroyed or has been rendered permanently incapable of use as stipulated in Section 55 of the Act. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not contain any provision which entitles the petitioner to seek cancellation of the registration of her vehicle and to apply for a fresh registration in terms of Ext.P4 WP(C).No.176/2010 3 order whereby the number KL-05-AA-4311 was reserved for her. In the absence of any statutory right in the petitioner to seek re- registration of her vehicle that was registered on 26.11.2009 in the State of Kerala, I am constrained to hold that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS