IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22869 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED, NALAKATH ODAVIL HOUSE, 13/533, KOTTOPPADAM P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 583. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-686 019. 2. ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 505. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-675 001. *ADDL.4TH RESPONDENT: TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001 *IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 29.8.2011 IN I.A.NO.14397/2011. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.HANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.22869/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. PHOTO COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 25.6.2011 EXT.P2. PHOTO COPY OF THE TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 25.6.2011 EXT.P3. PHOTOCOPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.GO(P)NO.3/2011 TRAN. DATED 25.1.2011 EXT.P4. PHOTO COPY OFO THE APPLIATION DATED 25.6.2011. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.22869 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a permanent resident of Kottopadam in Mannarkad Taluk within the local limits of the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Mannarkad, purchased a brand new motor car from a dealer at Perinthalmanna on 25.6.2011. He therefore got the vehicle temporarily registered with the registering authority at Perinthalmanna on 25.6.2011 itself. The said temporary certificate of registration was valid for a period of 14 days from 25.6.2011 to 8.7.2011. The petitioner states that immediately after his motor car was temporarily registered, he approached the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Mannarkad and submitted Ext.P4 application dated 25.6.2011 for advance reservation of the fancy registration mark KL-50 B 313, that the first respondent told him that the range within which the said number falls has not yet reached and that he should wait till the range within which that number falls is reached. It is stated that the petitioner is therefore, keeping the vehicle idle without plying it on the road, W.P(C).No.22869 of 2011 -:2:- that as on 18.8.2011 the last registration mark allotted from the office of the first respondent was 175 and that the average number of vehicles registered per day in the office of the first respondent is 30. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges rule 95 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 on the ground that it offends section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. In the alternative he seeks a direction to the respondent to allot the fancy registration mark KL-50 B 313 to his motor car. It is contended that though under sub-section (2) of section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a temporary certificate of registration is valid for a period of one month, the Transport Commissioner has by Circular No.4/2011 dated 18.2.2011 directed that the period of validity of temporary certificate of registration shall be 14 days and therefore the stipulation in the certificate of registration regarding the validity of the temporary registration offends the provisions of the parent enactment. 2. I am afraid there is no merit in the said contention. Even assuming that the circular issued by the Transport Commissioner offends section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot ipso facto result in invalidation of rule 95. All that the petitioner can contend W.P(C).No.22869 of 2011 -:3:- is that for the purpose of rule 95 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the temporary certificate of registration should be deemed to be valid for a period of one month. I therefore find no merit in the challenge to the validity of rule 95 on the ground that as per the circular issued by the Transport Commissioner, the period of validity of a temporary certificate of registration is only 14 days and not 30 days as stipulated in section 43(2) of the Act. 3. That apart, it is evident from the petitioner's own showing that he has not applied for reservation of the registration mark KL-50 B 313. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted on instructions that the registration marks presently allotted to vehicles by the first respondent are from the series KL-50A and that series having not been exhausted, the petitioner cannot apply for reservation of any fancy registration mark in the series KL-50 B. Rule 95 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules stipulates that an application for reservation of a fancy registration mark should be accompanied, inter alia, by a valid certificate of temporary registration. Even assuming that the temporary registration certificate is valid for a period of one month, the validity of the temporary registration W.P(C).No.22869 of 2011 -:4:- certificate of the petitioner's motor car expired on 24.7.2011. He cannot thereafter apply for the reservation of a fancy registration mark. His application, if any, should have been made on or before 24.7.2011. Apart from stating that he had submitted Ext.P4 application dated 25.6.2011 for reservation of the fancy registration mark, the petitioner has not produced any material to substantiate the said plea. As per rule 95, along with the application for reservation of the fancy registration mark, the receipt evidencing payment of the fee prescribed by the Government for reserving the fancy registration mark has to be enclosed. The fee prescribed by the Government for reserving the fancy registration mark 313 is Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner has no case that he had tendered the said fee and that the first respondent declined to receive it. No such case is set out in the writ petition. Even assuming that the petitioner had tendered the fee along with the application, the application was made in respect of the series KL-50 B and not the series KL-50 A. The petitioner could not have, in my opinion, applied for the reservation of a fancy registration mark in another series when the series from which numbers are being presently allotted has not been W.P(C).No.22869 of 2011 -:5:- exhausted. Except in cases where the new series would begin within 30 days of the date of temporary registration, the owner of a motor car cannot apply for reservation of a fancy registration mark in the new series before the current series is exhausted. I therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.22869 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 29th August, 2011