MUHAMMED Vs. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions pertains to controversy of fancy/particular registration numbers to the vehicles of appellants and petitioners respectively. Subsequent to amendment to Rule 95 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the Rules') which come into force with effect from 1.3.2011, several litigations are filed before this Court. In the above two appeals, challenge was to the rejection of the respondent authorities in allotting fancy/particular number of applicant's choice. They had approached the learned Single Judge and the Writ Petitions came to be dismissed. As the Writ Appeals were pending before the Division Bench, all the Writ Petitions involving similar controversy were clubbed with the above appeals. The table below would indicate which appellants/petitioners had sought for which fancy/particular number which came to be rejected by the respondent transport authorities: <p><table class = tablestyle width="90%" border="0" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1"> <tr> <td><div align="center"><strong>CASE No.</strong></div></td> <td> <div align="center"><strong>FANCY/ PARTICULAR</strong></div></td> <td><div align="center"><strong>NUMBER SOUGHT FOR</strong></div></td> <td><div align="center"><strong>TEMP. REGISTRATION NUMBER</strong></div></td> <td><div align="center"><strong>VEHICLE MODEL</strong></div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">1.</div></td> <td> <div align="center">WA. 1490/2011 </div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-50-B/313</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-53-E-TEMP-7638</div></td> <td><div align="center">TOYOTAFORTUNER3.0L 4WDMT </div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">2.</div></td> <td><div align="center">WA.1526/2011</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-18/H-333</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-39-DTEMP-694</div></td> <td><div align="center">BMW CAR 520 d</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">3.</div></td> <td><div align="center">WP(C). 16353/11</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-54-C-111</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-11-X-TEMP-7980</div></td> <td><div align="center">FORD FIESTAMOTORCAR</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">4.</div></td> <td><div align="center">WP(C).19516/11</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-18-H6</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-13-H-TEMP-5142</div></td> <td><div align="center">MARUTI SWIFT DZIRE MOTORCAR<br> </div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">5.</div></td> <td><div align="center">WP(C).20160/11</div></td> <td> <div align="center">KL-42/E-6111</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-5-AD-5</div></td> <td><div align="center">MARUTI ALTO CAR PORSCHE E2 CAYENNE DIESEL CAR</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">6.</div></td> <td><div align="center">WP(C).23066/11</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-BS-1771</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-7-AL-TEMP-3849</div></td> <td><div align="center">VOLVO S16, D52.5L DIESELCAR<br> </div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">7.</div></td> <td><div align="center">WP(C).24760/11</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-53-C-9999</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-39-D-TEMP-865</div></td> <td><div align="center">AUDI Q-7 SPORTS UTILITY VEHICLE CAR</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">8.</div></td> <td> <div align="center">WP(C).26172/11 </div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-16/H-500</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-7-AL-TEMP-952 KL-7-AL-TEMP-6343</div></td> <td><div align="center">TATAINDICA VISTA VX</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">9.</div></td> <td><div align="center">WP(C).26464/11</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-13-X-313 </div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-13-J-TEMP-4221</div></td> <td><div align="center">TOYOTA FORTUNER MOTORCAR</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">10.</div></td> <td><div align="center">WP(C).26350/11</div></td> <td> <div align="center">KL-19-B-5864 OR KL-19-B-5764</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-39-D-TEMP-2335</div></td> <td><div align="center">MBWPP-17 MOTORCAR</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">11.</div></td> <td><div align="center">WP(C).26933/11</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-13-X-369</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-11-AA-TEMP-292</div></td> <td><div align="center">MARUTI SWIFT DEZIRE VDI</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">12.</div></td> <td><div align="center">WP(C).29248/11</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-46-F-6</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-39-D-TEMP-4860 </div></td> <td><div align="center">FIAT LINEAMOTOR CAR</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">13.</div></td> <td><div align="center">WP(C).30266/11</div></td> <td><div align="center">KL-5-AD-777</div></td> <td> <div align="center">KL-39-D-TEMP-122 </div></td> <td><div align="center">MERCEDEZBENZ DIESELCAR</div></td> </tr> </table>

(2.) In all the above cases, the main grievance is with regard to allotment of fancy/chosen number. In some cases, when owners of the vehicles approached the registering authorities, they were asked to apply later, on the ground, the fancy mark sought by the respective applicants had not yet reached the allotment. Later, when they approached the registering authorities, though they were ready to tender required fee notified by the authorities, but they came to be rejected on the ground that none of the vehicles had valid temporary registration. According to the appellants/petitioners, having notified rules of allotment in order to augment the revenue of the State by imposing unreasonable conditions, the authorities are virtually not giving effect to the scheme of allotment of fancy/desired numbers and the very object and purpose of amendment brought to the said Rules is frustrated.

(3.) According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the petitioners, though provision of allotting the notified fancy/chosen numbers to the vehicles belonging to the various departments of the Government is provided, it is nothing, but a loss to the State exchequer. Under legitimate expectation of getting the fancy number of their choice, they have to keep their vehicles unused and non receipt of money by the respondents has led to hardship and financial loss to them. It was further stressed upon the point why Rule 95 of the Rules came to be substituted with the present Rule 95 with effect from 1.3.2011, as it contemplates that reservation of fancy mark could be given only to the registered owners of the motor vehicles and this was envisaged to ensure that genuine applicants alone would get the fancy numbers so as to prevent the touts and agents from entering fray. They have approached the Court contending, if the substitution of Rule 95 was with the object of discouraging ill- motivated persons to enter the fray, when good number of documents other than the valid temporary registration confirm the ownership of the vehicle of the applicant, there was no justification for the authorities to reject the same. According to the learned counsel representing the appellants, the learned Single Judge, without referring to the above situation, has proceeded to dismiss the Writ Petitions opining that the applications have to be within the accepted procedure indicated in the Rules and the same is erroneous. It was further contended, even if agent is allowed to reserve the fancy numbers, once temporary registration is issued to him, the same has to be considered as valid registration till the permanent registration number is allotted In different Writ Petitions they have also come out with factual difficulties faced by them to approach the transport authorities for allotment of desired fancy numbers within the validity of temporary registration. However, those facts may not be of much relevance as the question raised before us requires to see whether Rule 95 contemplating valid temporary registration is justified and reasonable.