IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3889 of 2006 Between: M/s. CMR Transport Contractors Company Pvt Ltd., D.No.54- 18/3/4, Bharat Gas Lane, Near I.T.I. Gate, Sivapuram Colony, Vijayawada, Rep by its Managing Director Sri Ch.Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o.Ch.Janalayya. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Transports, Govt of A.P., Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Transport Authority, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by duly declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not accepting the sealed cover offering highest bid of Rs.31,000/- for the allotment of registration number of AP 16 AP 1111, through the same was offered for submission in time on 24-02-2006 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Rule 81 (5) of A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein not to allot the said registration to the third parties and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI T.V.RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3889 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is a Company. They purchased Mercedes- Benz E 270 CDI Diesel car and approached the second respondent for registration. They preferred for registration No.AP 16 AP 1111 (hereafter referred to as, preferred number). As required under Rule 81 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (the Rules, for brevity), they submitted an application enclosing a demand draft for Rs.20,000/-. Having come to know that there is one more person claiming the number “1111”, petitioner allegedly submitted a sealed cover containing a tender offering the bid amount of Rs.31,000/- for allotment of number of their choice. Allegedly, second respondent refused to accept the same. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner submitted a representation on 24.02.2006 to the Hon’ble Minister for Transport, in vain. Therefore, they filed the instant writ petition seeking a declaration that the non-acceptance of sealed cover as bad and illegal, and for a consequential direction to respondents not to allot preferred number to third parties. This Court passed interim orders on 23.09.2008 directing second respondent to conduct auction for allotment of preferred number between the petitioner and the other person. The other person, Sri V.Nageswara Rao, filed an application, being W.P.M.P.No.32188 of 2008, seeking impleadment. He also filed another application, being W.V.M.P(SR).No.128426 of 2008, for vacating the interim order. At that stage itself, the matter is heard finally and is being disposed of by this order. Second respondent filed counter affidavit. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the counter affidavit is extracted below. On 24.2.2006 there are two applications received in form RRMA for the reservation of Registration No.AP16AP1111 from (1) M/s.CMR Transport Contractors Pvt.Ltd of Vijayawada (2) Sri V.Nageswara Rao of Vijayawada and filed their application along with a prescribed fee Rs.20,000/- for each application by way of Demand Draft as per para.III of G.O.Ms.No.95 para (5), Dt.28.6.2002 and dropped in the Drop box along with others. As per G.O.Ms.No.95 (para(5), Dt.28.6.2002 Para VI the box will be opened at 1.00 PM in the presence of the Regional Transport Officer. There are two applications received for the same number i.e., AP16AP1111, Informed the applicants to appear in the office by 3.00 PM as usual. As per G.O.Ms.No.95, para(5) Dt.28.6.2002 auction will be conducted at 3.00 PM in the sealed Tenders on the same day. The applicants offered their amounts by way of Demand Drafts in the sealed covers. The number shall be allotted to the highest offer from those who have filed applications. The bid amount offered shall not be less than the fees referred to in Sub-Rule 3(iii) of the G.O.Ms.No.95(para(5), Dt.28.6.2002). If any applicant not present at 3.00 PM for bidding his application along with the fee shall be forfeited. On 24.2.2006 the Deputy Transport Commissioner was away from Head Quarters to conduct an enquiry in which she was appointed as enquiry Officer at Hyderabad. The Auction was conducted in the presence of the R.T.O Sri V.V.Panchamukheswara Rao. On the same day there are 7 auctions conducted for Registration Numbers AP16AP 1089, 1113, 1122, 1144, 1166, 1195, 1111. The applicant for CMR Transport Contractors Pvt.Ltd. of Vijayawada not present at 3.00 PM for the auction of AP16AP1111 to give an opportunity to him to file the bid amount DD the auction was conducted lastly with the consent of the other applicant Sri V.Nageswara Rao of Vijayawada and conducted the auction at 3.45 PM i.e., after conducting the above 6 auctions. By that time also the applicant for M/s.CMR Transport Contractors Company Pvt.Ltd of Vijayawada not turned up. The second applicant Sri V.Nageswara Rao of Vijayawada offered bid amount Rs.20001/- by way of Demand Drafts Rs.20000 DD No.627653, Dt.24.2.06 of IDBI Bank, Vijayawada and Rs.1.00 DD No.065202, Dt.10.1.06 of A.P.S.Co.op Bank Ltd, Vijayawada in the sealed tender. Hence the Registration No.AP16AP 1111 knocked in favour of Sri V.Nageswara Rao. Even though the auction conducted lastly by 3.45 PM the applicant for M/s. CMR Transport Contractors Company Pvt.Ltd of Vijayawada not turned up for bidding, hence his application along with fee Rs.20000/- forfeited as per G.O.Ms.No.95 (para(5), Dt.28.6.2002). Along with the application for vacating the interim order the impleaded party also filed counter affidavit stating that he received letter on 27.10.2008 from second respondent calling for bid amounts for the preferred number and he was also informed that the reserved number in his favour would be cancelled. After having to know that this Court ordered auction, he approached this Court stating that the petitioner has not participated in the auction at 3.45 pm on 24.02.2006. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner submitted application with Rs.20,000/- claiming the preferred number, but having come to know that there is another person for the same number, he filed a tender quoting Rs.31,000/- and enclosed 3 demand drafts issued by IDBI Bank, Vijayawada, but the sealed cover was refused by second respondent. He secondly submits that as petitioner quoted higher amount for preferred number he ought to have been allotted. Opposing the writ petition, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport and learned Counsel for third respondent submits that as required under the Rules, the person who filed application for preferred number, ought to be present when the auction is conducted. But, the petitioner was absent on that day, and therefore, number is already allotted/reserved in favour of third respondent. Rule 81 of the Rules deals with the procedure for assignment of registration numbers. Sub rule (1) thereof is to the effect that on receipt of applications for registration, the Registering Authority shall arrange them alphabetically every day and sign the numbers serially after the last registration mark assigned subject to Sub rules (3) to (6) of Rule 81 of the Rules. As per Sub rule (3) of Rule 81 of the Rules a person desiring to have special numbers has to make an application in Form RRMA paying the fee as prescribed therein. Different application fee is prescribed for different special numbers. Under Rule 81(3)(i) of the Rules, for the special number “1111” the fee at Rs.20,000/- is payable. All those persons who desire reservation of special numbers shall file applications upto 1:00 pm in drop box specially kept for the purpose, and no application would be allowed after 1:00 pm. The fee has to be paid by way of demand draft. In case of there being more than one application for a particular registration number what is the procedure to be followed? Rule 81(5) of the Rules contains the procedure and reads as under. 81(5). If there is more than one application in a day for a particular registration number, the reservation shall be made by way of receiving tenders in closed envelopes along with the RRMTA. All applicants shall enclose the offered amount by way of a Demand Draft in favour of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority of the District to the tender form at 3 P.M. on the same day before the registering authority. The number shall be allotted to the highest offer from those who have filed applications. If any applicant is not present at 3 P.M for bidding, his application along with fee shall be forfeited. The bid amount offered shall not be less than the fees referred to in sub rule (3)(i), (ii) and (iii), as the case may be. When there are more than one application for a particular number the reservation shall be made by way of tenders in closed envelopes and number shall be allotted to highest offer from those who have filed applications. Persons, who filed applications before 1:00 pm for a particular reservation of number when there is a competition, have to submit their tender forms at 3:00 pm on the same day before the registering authority. If there are more than two persons and one of them alone submits a sealed tender before 3:00 pm and another person does not submit any such application, again it shall be a case where only one application is made for one number, and the offer made by such person before 3:00 pm in a sealed cover has to be accepted. As stated by the Deputy Transport Commissioner in the counter affidavit, petitioner was not present at 3:00 pm for the auction of the preferred number and that though there were seven auctions on that day, so as to give an opportunity to the petitioner, auction for preferred number was conducted in the last at 3:45 pm. As there is a dispute with regard to this, this Court directed learned Assistant Government Pleader to produce the file. The counter averments are true reflection of the original record placed before this Court. The record clearly shows that though the petitioner filed application in form RRMA with demand draft for Rs.20,000/- he was not present. Therefore, order was passed on that day allotting the preferred number to third respondent. Therefore, the case of the petitioner that their application was refused to be accepted before conducting auction cannot be accepted. Indeed, it is uncontroverted that second respondent waited up to 3:45 pm to give opportunity to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that order passed by the learned single Judge has become final and no writ appeal is filed, and therefore, third respondent is bound by the order. This Court is afraid that the submission is misconceived. A person aggrieved by interlocutory order may not file Letters Patent Appeal, but can file an application before this Court for vacating the interim order. In this case, initially, the petitioner did not implead V.Nageswara Rao as party respondent, though in all probability, the petitioner was aware of such person. Therefore, third respondent after receiving notice of auction from the second respondent filed the application before this Court for vacating the interim order dated 23.09.2008. When this application along with implead application came before this Court on 11.12.2008, this Court heard the matter. Therefore, interlocutory order passed by this Court cannot be considered as depriving the right of third respondent. As noticed supra the second respondent followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 81(5) of the Rules, and correctly allotted the preferred number to third respondent. The Writ Petition is misconceived, and the same is dismissed accordingly. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 16.12.2008 vs To 1 The Commissioner of Transports, Govt of A.P., Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Transport Authority, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 2CCs to G.P for Transport, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRR}