SATHIAPALAN Vs. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner who is the owner of a Maruthi Suzuki Car filed this Writ Petition with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent to allot the fancy registration number KL -56/C 5656 to the aforesaid vehicle in terms of the provisions under Rule 95 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (for short 'the Rules'). Admittedly, three persons viz., the Petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3 herein have applied for the aforesaid fancy registration number.

(2.) Rule 95(1) of the Rules requires reference in the context of the rival contentions raised in this case and the same reads thus:

(3.) Essentially, the contention of the Petitioner is that Respondents 2 and 3 could not be considered as proposed purchasers on the date of the application for fancy registration number by virtue of the above provision. Admittedly, they were not the owners of any vehicle as on the date of application. Therefore, according to the Petitioner, they were ineligible to get the aforesaid fancy registration number in terms of the provisions under Rule 95 of the rules. Going by the provisions under Rule 95 of the Rules, one can apply for reservation of fancy registration number only if he is a proposed purchaser or the owner of a vehicle. The question is when can a person be termed as a 'proposed purchaser'. Whether a mere intention or desire to purchase a vehicle would bring a person within the expression 'proposed purchaser'