IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1033 of 2011() ----------------------------- (JUDGMENT DT.26.3.2011 IN WP(C).13700 OF 2011) APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- 1. MATHEWSONS INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIJU MATHEW, S/O.M.K.MATHEW, MATHEWSONS BUILDINGS, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. 2. M/S.MATHEWSONS AGENCIES (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BABU MATHEW, S/O.M.K.MATHEW, MATHEWSONS BUILDINGS, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI-682 030. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERATE, KERALAM, TRANS TOWERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1033 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. It is not in dispute that the appellants are the unsuccessful auction bidders for fancy registration number KL-7 BM 77 and KL-7 BN 77 respectively. It is also not in dispute that the allotment of fancy registration numbers were given on the basis of the existing Rules at the relevant point of time, i.e., Rule 95 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. As per the earlier procedure, if the vehicle was not produced for registration within three months from the date of allotment, an extension of the time could be sought by the bidder. It is also not in dispute, the two fancy registration numbers came to be allotted on 29.11.2009 and 15.5.2010 respectively. It is also not in dispute that on four occasions, extension of time was sought and accordingly, the respondent authorities extended the time for production of the vehicle for allowing fancy registration number. Unfortunately, WA.1033/11 2 before the appellants could get the fancy registrations given to the vehicles, a new Circular No.6/11 dated 18.2.2011 came into existence. As there was amendment to Rule 95 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 with effect from 1.3.2011, which require production of a valid temporary registration by the owner of the vehicle, application seeking extension of time to produce vehicle for fancy registration came to be returned without entertaining the same. According to learned counsel for the appellants, by virtue of clause 27 of the Circular dated 18.2.2011 referred to above, he is still entitled to make an application for extension of time as the said circular indicates that the applications received prior to 28.2.2011 had to be entertained and all the procedures had to be completed on or before 15.3.2011. 3. In the present case, apparently, the dealer has sought for the fancy registration numbers without the vehicles being in possession of the dealer at Kerala. Apparently, they are not the owner of the vehicles. Even if the allotment of fancy registration, in pursuance of their applications were to be entertained, it had to be entertained only on or before 15.3.2011. Apparently, the appellants were not able to produce the vehicles on or before WA.1033/11 3 15.3.2011. Therefore, the question of extending time for allotting fancy registration numbers would not enure to their benefit. Even otherwise, by virtue of the amendment to Rule 95, unless the appellants are the owners, they will not be entitled to ask for fancy registration numbers. Therefore, the authorities were justified in returning the applications to the appellants. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the opinion of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs