IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15248 of 2011(E) ----------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- DR. C.P. ABDUL REHIMAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HIGHLAND HOSPITAL, VASLANE, MANGALORE. BY ADVS. SRI. P.V. BABY SRI. A.N. SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KASARAGOD-671121. 2. STATE OF KREALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRIANDRUM-695001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANTH BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 15248 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner purchased a brand new car on 5.2.2011 from a dealer at Mangalore. He thereafter got the car temporarily registered under section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act at Mangalore itself and it was valid till 6.3.2011, as can be seen from the endorsement on Ext.P1 sale certificate. The petitioner states that though thereafter he approached the Regional Transport Officer, Kasaragod for allotment of a fancy number, his application was not received on the ground that the validity of the temporary registration certificate of his vehicle expired on 6.3.2011. The petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P2 representation dated nil for reservation and allotment of a fancy number and in reply to the said representation the first respondent sent Ext.P3 letter dated 4.5.2011 to the effect that as the temporary registration certificate issued to the petitioner's vehicle expired on 6.3.2011, he cannot apply for reservation of a fancy number. It is in such circumstances that the instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P4 notification by which Rule 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act was amended and quash the said amendment. (ii) Declare that the stipulations contained in Ext.P4 notification to the effect that the vehicle should have a valid temporary registration certificate in order to apply for WPC No.15248/2011 2 reservation of fancy registration number when an owner of a motor vehicle is applying cannot be insisted. (iii) Direct the 1st respondent to entertain the application for reservation of any of the fancy reservation numbers and to consider the application and to allot any fancy number as contained in Ext.P4 on remittance of required fee without insisting temporary registration certificate of the vehicle since the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle.” 2. The principal contention raised by the petitioner and urged before me by Sri.P.V.Baby, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that rule 95 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules is ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act for the reason that the State Government has no power to frame a rule to provide for reservation of fancy numbers. It is evident from the pleadings and the materials on record that the temporary registration certificate issued in respect of the petitioner's motor car was valid only till 6.3.2011. As per the stipulations in rule 95 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules as it stood prior to 1.3.2011, even the prospective purchaser of a motor vehicle had the right to apply for reservation of a fancy registration number (vide the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Joint Regional Transport Authority v. P.K.Sathyapalan (ILR 2011 (2) Kerala 42). The petitioner has no case that he had applied for reservation of a fancy number in accordance with the provisions contained in rule 95 as it stood immediately prior to 1.3.2011. Rule 95 in its present form was introduced with effect from 1.3.2011. Under the new set of rules an WPC No.15248/2011 3 application for reservation of a registration mark has to be accompanied by a valid temporary registration certificate and proof of remittance of tax in the case of non transport vehicles. The temporary certificate of registration in respect of the petitioner's motor car ceased to be valid on 6.3.2011. The petitioner has not pleaded or proved that prior to that day he had submitted an application in terms of rule 95 as amended for reservation of a fancy registration number. In fact the writ petition and accompanying papers are totally silent as regards the registration mark which the petitioner was desirous of reserving. The first representation which the petitioner submitted is dated 25.4.2011 as can be seen from Ext.P3 letter sent by the first respondent. By then, the temporary registration certificate in respect of the petitioner's car had ceased to be valid in view of the stipulations contained in section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Such being the situation, I am of the opinion that the stand taken by the first respondent in Ext.P3 letter cannot be said to be illegal. 3. As regards the challenge to the validity of rule 95, the sole contention raised is that rule 95 is not within the rule making power of the State. I am of the opinion that the said contention is also without merit. Sub section (1) of section 65 of the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates that the State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 other than the WPC No.15248/2011 4 matters specified in section 64. Section 64 empowers the Central Government to make rules in respect of the matters enumerated therein. Section 64 does not empower the Central Government to make a rule regarding reservation of fancy registration numbers. Therefore on the terms of sub section (1) of section 65 of the Act it is within the competence of the State Government to make a rule regarding reservation of fancy registration numbers. The matters enumerated in sub section (2) of section 65 are only illustrative and not exhaustive and therefore the challenge to the validity of rule 95 on the ground that it is ultra vires the Act cannot be sustained. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with the observation that nothing contained in this judgment will stand in the way of the petitioner from applying for the allotment of a registration mark to his car in accordance with law. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps