IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13700 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MATHEWSONS INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,BIJU MATHEW, S/O.M.K.MATHEW,MATHEWSONS BUILDINGS,KALOOR, KOCHI-682017. 2. M/S.MATHEWSONS AGENCIES(P)LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECOR,BABU MATHEW, S/O.M.K.MATHEW,MATHEWSONS BUILDINGS,KALOOR, KOCHI-682017. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,KOCHI-682030. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERATE,KERALAM,TRANS TOWERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13700 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners submitted separate applications under rule 95 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules' for short) for reservation of two fancy registration numbers, KL-7 BM 77 and KL-7 BN 77. Though an auction was held in view of the large number of applications and the petitioners were the successful bidders, they did not produce the vehicles for registration within the time stipulated in sub-rule (10) of rule 95 of the Rules. Instead, the petitioners sought extension of time by submitting separate applications dated 17.2.2011 and 19.2.2011 accompanied by a fee of Rs.2000/-. It is stated that as the period for which extension of time was granted was about to expire on 21.5.2011, the petitioners have filed Exts.P1 and P2 applications dated 17.5.2011 seeking further extension of time. This writ petition is filed mainly seeking a direction to the first respondent to grant further extension of time by 90 days for production of motor vehicles by the petitioners for registration with the fancy numbers, KL-7 BM 77 and KL-7 BN 77 respectively. The petitioners have also prayed for an order directing the first respondent not to allot the aforesaid fancy numbers to any other person. 2. Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, the learned counsel for the W.P.(C) No.13700 of 2011 2 petitioners contended that in view of Circular No.6 of 2011 dated 18.2.2011 issued by the second respondent the petitioners are entitled to extension of time to produce the vehicles, and therefore, though rule 95 has been amended with effect from 1.3.2011, the petitioners are entitled to enlargement of time as sought for in Exts.P1 and P2. 3. Per contra, Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted on instructions that the first petitioner had submitted an application dated 13.10.2009 under rule 95 of the rules as it then stood for reservation of the fancy number, KL-7 BM 77 in favour of the first petitioner and that the second petitioner had submitted an application dated 9.3.2010 for reservation of the fancy number KL-7 BN 77 in favour of the second petitioner. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that as there were more than one application, an auction was conducted on 29.11.2009 in respect of the fancy number, KL-7 BM 77 and on 15.5.2010 in respect of the fancy number, KL-7 BN 77 and in that auction the petitioners were the highest bidders. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that though the petitioners were highest bidders in the auction held on 29.11.2009 and 15.5.2010 respectively, they did not produce motor vehicles for W.P.(C) No.13700 of 2011 3 registration within the time limit of 3 months stipulated in sub-rule (10) of rule 95 of the rules as it stood prior to 1.3.2011, and therefore, the reservation fee and the auction amount deposited by the petitioners are liable to be forfeited. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that in view of the statutory stipulations, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. In sub-rule (10) of rule 95 of the rules which was in force prior to 1.3.2011, it was stipulated that if for any reason, the vehicle for which a particular number has been reserved is not produced for registration within a period of three months from the date of reservation of the number, such reservation shall cease to have effect and the reservation fee or the bid amount, as the case may be, paid by the person in whose favour the number is reserved shall be forfeited. It was also stipulated that such numbers and the fancy numbers notified by the Transport Commissioner under sub-rule (2) in respect of which no application has been received shall be allotted serially under the normal procedure immediately after all the numbers in the current series are exhausted. 5. A Division Bench of this Court has in Joint R.T.O. v. W.P.(C) No.13700 of 2011 4 P.K.Sathiapalan (ILR 2011 (2) Kerala 42) held that the proposed purchaser or the owner of a vehicle is entitled to make an application for reservation of fancy numbers under rule 95 of the rules. Therefore, though the petitioners were entitled to make an application under rule 95 of the rules as it then stood for reservation of the aforesaid fancy numbers, that by itself is not a reason to hold that they are entitled to extension of time for production of the vehicle for registration with the fancy numbers reserved in their favour. In the light of the express stipulations in sub-rule (10) of rule 95 of the rules as it then stood, on the failure of the petitioners to produce the vehicles for registration within the period of three months from the date of reservation, the reservation ceased to have effect and the amount deposited by them including the reservation fee became liable to be forfeited. On the terms of sub-rule (10) of rule 95 of the rules, as it then stood, after all the numbers in the series KL-7 BM and KL-7 BN were exhausted, the numbers reserved by the petitioners were to be allotted serially under the normal procedure. In the instant case, the petitioners applied for reservation of the fancy numbers by submitting applications dated 13.10.2009 and 9.3.2010 respectively. The auction in respect of the fancy numbers, the reservation of which was sought by the petitioners, was held on 29.11.2009 and W.P.(C) No.13700 of 2011 5 15.5.2010. Though the petitioners were the highest bidders in the auction, they did not produce vehicles for registration within three months from 13.10.2009 and 9.3.2010 respectively. In such circumstances, as sub-rule (10) of rule 95 of the rules as it then stood did not contemplate grant of extension of time for production of the motor vehicles for registration, I am of the opinion that the request made by the petitioners cannot be granted. On the failure of the petitioners to produce the vehicles for registration within the time limit stipulated in sub-rule (10) of rule 95, the petitioners ceased to have any right to claim reservation of the fancy numbers, KL-7 BM 77 and KL-7 BN 77 respectively. The bid amount deposited by them along with the application fee was liable to be forfeited on the expiry of the period of three months stipulated in sub-rule (10) of rule 95 of the rules as it then stood and the first respondent has a duty to allot the fancy numbers, KL-7 BM 77 and KL-7 BN 77, under the normal procedure after the said series stood exhausted. That apart, there is also another reason why the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. As noticed earlier, rule 95 has since been substituted with effect from 1.3.2011, sub-rule (1) thereof stipulates that reservation of fancy registration mark may be made for the registration of a new motor vehicle under section 39 of the Act, on an W.P.(C) No.13700 of 2011 6 application made to the registering authority by the owner of a motor vehicle. Therefore, under the new set of rules, only the owner of a motor vehicle can apply for reservation of a fancy registration mark. The application for reservation has to be accompanied by a valid temporary registration certificate and proof of remittance of tax. Therefore, on and with effect from 1.3.2011, only an owner of a motor vehicle can apply for the reservation of a fancy registration mark. In the light of the change brought about in the rules, the first respondent cannot grant the request made by the petitioners in Exts.P1 and P2. Therefore, for that reason also, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.