A high bidder's failure to pay entails forfeiture of the bid amount under Rule 95(9) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, with no provision allowing cancellation of the bid.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner purchased a Maruti Swift car on 20.02.2025 with the intention of obtaining a fancy registration number, and showed his interest in the number KL 44 J 8282. The petitioner also remitted Rs.3,000/- as the reserve price notified for the registration. He had also engaged his friend to participate in the bidding. There was another person who participated in the bidding, and the petitioner's friend quoted an amount of Rs.42,000/- and became the highest bidder. Accordingly, the petitioner was bound to remit Rs.39,000/-, as he had already remitted Rs.3,000/-.

2. The petitioner submits that he made a request on

02.07.2025 before the Joint RTO, Kothamangalam, to act in terms of Circulars G.O.(P) No.3/2011/Trans and G.O.(P) No.64/2015/Trans and Rule 95 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989 and to cancel the participation in the auction and forfeit the amount which the petitioner had already paid to the SRTO. The officer refused to proceed according to the Government order, as there is no provision to cancel the reserved bid number and also no such provision in M-Parivahan to accommodate such a request. The petitioner had also preferred an application under the RTI Act and obtained Ext. P8 reply clarifying that on failure to remit the auction amount a subsequent number could be allotted; however, despite approaching the Kothamangalam SRTO and thereafter the 4^th respondent Transport Commissionerate, he was denied allotment of a regular number and was informed that no decision or extension of temporary registration could be taken as the file was pending for want of a response from the Joint RTO.

3. Based on the above facts, the petitioner seeks the following prayers.

“(i) The petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction directing the respondents to clarify the prevailing law as expeditiously without inordinate delay and consider the application of petitioner accordance with law.

(ii) Call for records relating to the application and procedure for issuance of allotting registration number in case of non payment of bidded amount.

(iii) The petitioner seeks to issue a direction to Respondent No.6 to adopt necessary steps and arrangements in the MParivahan website if there is deficiency of method to forfeit the amount paid for participation.

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directing the 1^st respondent to consider and take immediate action within 10 days in Exhibit P2 communication in accordance with the prevailing law preferred by the petitioner.

(v) To issue such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the Government, which states that the highest bidder has to remit the remaining balance amount online and register the vehicle within five days. It is pointed out that because the e-auction process takes place online, if the highest bidder is not ready to pay the balance fee, the other participants will not know the fact, and the number will not go automatically to the next highest bidder. It is also pointed out that the total amount paid by the highest bidder has to be forfeited under the Rule, and the number will stand lapsed and will become available on the reservation platform of the public for future reservation. It is pointed out that the number KL 44 J 8282 was available for booking since 23.06.2025, and the first applicant, Shri. Nishad K.A. paid the reservation fees of Rs. 3,000/- and booked the number on the very first day of booking, i.e., on 23.06.2025. After six days, the petitioner paid a reservation fee of Rs. 3.000/- and booked the same number, on account of which an e-auction had