HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Writ Petition No.21046 of 2014 Date: 28-07-2014 Between:
P. Srinivas .. Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Writ Petition No.21046 of 2014 ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the application made by the petitioner for registering his four wheeler with registration No.TS-16-EA-0001 as the same is available with the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to direct the respondents not to allot the said registration number to any other vehicle than the petitioner.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he applied for registration of his four wheeler and the 1st respondent got started a new series for the 2nd respondent bearing TS-16-EA and he applied for allotment of Registration No.TS-16-EA-0001, which is not reserved by any person and as per G.O.Ms.No.175, for any current number for which reservation is made on payment of Rs.1,000/-, the number is to be allotted. It is stated that the petitioner verified and found that the said number is not reserved by any person and is available in the list of current numbers available for reservation on 18-06-2014 and that the 2nd respondent had rejected the application made for reservation of the said number on the ground that as G.O.Ms.No.175, dated 20- 09-2006 is prescribing a fee of Rs.50,000/- for reserving 0001 number, the petitioner did not pay the prescribed fee and that he has to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- for reservation of the said number. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Transport stated on instructions that the petitioner falls under clause (i) of sub-rule (3) of G.O.Ms.No.175, Tr. R & B (Tr.I) Department, dated 20-09-2006 and that the proviso to clause (v) of sub-rule (3) cannot be read in isolation and it shall be read with sub-rule (3) of the said G.O., according to which, for registering any one of the numbers 1, 9, 999, 9999, the applicant has to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- and that since the petitioner has paid only Rs.1000/-, instead of paying Rs.50,000/-, for allotment of subject number, the application of the petitioner was rejected.
5. In the instant case, a reading of G.O.Ms.No.175, Transport, Roads and Buildings (TR.I), dated 20-09-2006 clearly shows that for registering the numbers in clause (i) of sub-rule (3), the applicant has to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-, but the petitioner has paid Rs.1000/- only for registering the subject number i.e. 0001, contrary to the said G.O. The proviso to clause (v) of sub-rule (3) of the G.O. says that any current number can be reserved on payment of Rs.1000/-, but the same cannot be read in isolation and it shall be read with sub-rule (3) of the said G.O. Since the petitioner has paid only Rs.1000/- for registering the numbers provided under clause (i) of sub-rule (3) of the G.O., instead of paying Rs.50,000/-, the application of the petitioner is rightly rejected. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Date: 28-07-2014 Ksn