Briefly the facts are that the petitioner purchased new Car VTI Oriel Honda Civic on 13-12-2004 and had earlier offered a final bid for Registration No.MLE/786 a Rs.21,000 and deposited the same at the spot vide receipt dated 26-11-2004. The grievance voiced by the petitioner through this writ petition is that after purchase of the car when he contacted respondent No.2 for registration of the car, the latter in spite of that the full amount for the said registration number had already been deposited by the petitioner, refused to allot him the same on the ground that the higher authorities have issued directions not to register any car against the attractive numbers. The petitioner seeks issuance of necessary directions by this Court to the respondents for registration of his car against MLE/786 as their act of refusal to allot him said number is illegal and of no legal effect.
2. The requisite report and parawise comments have been filed by the respondents. Therein though it is admitted that the petitioner was the final bidder of Registration No.MLE/786 yet it is stated that the same was subject to approval by the competent authority and case of the petitioner submitted to the Administrative Department which has refused to approve the same as the petitioner had only offered Rs.21,000 while the said number of the previous serial MLD was sold out at Rs.46,000.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner stood the highest bidder in the auction and the total amount was also received from him by the concerned officials, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to refuse him allocation of the said number and as such the act of the respondents is illegal and they are bound to allot him the same, hence necessary directions may be issued in this regard.
4. On the other hand learned Addl. A.-G. Has contested this writ petition and contends that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the policy of the Government and as offer of the petitioner has not been approved by the competent authority, the said number cannot be allotted to him. According to him the petitioner was already informed about disapproval of his bid due to less amount vide letter dated 18-12-2004, which is attached as Annex-F with the comments.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the writ petition as well as the report and parawise comments submitted by the respondents. The respondents have brought on record copies of advertisement (Annex-A and B) for auction of attractive numbers which duly find mentioned that the bid was subject to approval by the competent authority and the successful bidders were to deposit the whole amount at the spot. The said advertisements were got published pursuant to Circular dated 29-5-2003 issued by the Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, Government of the Punjab and sub-clauses (k) of the same is reproduced here for ready reference:-- "The owner has neither any right nor it is lawful for him to display the Registration Mark allocated in auction merely on the ground of having deposited the auction money. The number is allowed to be displayed only after proper registration of the vehicle and issuance of valid registration certificate."
As such the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner had already deposited the whole amount is of no avail to the petitioner and it did not create any vested right in him for allotment of the requisite attractive number because deposit of the whole amount was provided in the terms and conditions whereunder the bid was held and the same was subject to approval by the competent authority.
6. There is nothing on the record that the bid was confirmed in the name of the petitioner and even in the receipt (Annex-B) attached with the writ petition whereby amount of Rs.21,000 was deposited, it is only recorded that the petitioner has intended to offer bid for attractive Registration No.MLE/786. According to the letter dated 8-12-2004 issued by the Excise and Taxation Department, Government of the Punjab the administrative department has not accorded approval to the bid of the petitioner along with certain other numbers. The learned counsel has failed to show any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the respondents for refusing kim allocation of the attractive number as admittedly the same number of previous serial MLD was sold out at Rs.46,000 as is clear from the letter dated 30-11-2004 (annexed at D with the comments) and if the competent authority has not accorded approval being difference of bid amount regarding same number of different serials, I do not find that they have acted malafidely as they are bound to secure the interest of the public exchequer and the purpose of auction of the attractive registration number is to generate funds.
7. Apart from above, the learned counsel has not been able to show that allocation of a specific registration number even through auction was a vested right of the petitioner and writ petition is only maintainable against a vested right.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is dismissed.