AMOD KUMAR MISHRA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors.

disposed of in the prescribed manner. (3) Every decision on such appeal subject to provisions of Section 27, shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law. (4) The Appellate authority may on his own motion call for the record of any case in which an order has been passed or a direction has been given by the Taxing Officer, or which relates to seizure or release of the vehicle under Section 22 and may pass such order in relation to the case as it deems fit, if it finds that the order in question was without jurisdiction or illegal.

Rule 18 of the Rules of 1994 provides for the authorities to whom the appeal or revision would lay. It reads thus : “18. Authorities to hear Appeals and - 3 - Revision – The authorities to hear appeals and revision under various provisions of the ordinance will be as follows : Authorities passing an order (i) Officer other than Taxing Officer and below the rank of Regional Transport Officer. (ii) Taxing Officer (iii) Officer other than those mentioned in serial 1 and 2 above but below the State Transport Commissioner. (iv) State Transport Commissioner. Appellate Authority Revisional Authority Taxing Officer Regional Transport Officer. Regional Transport Officer State Commissioner. Transport Transport State Commissioner. Member Board of Revenue. Secretary, Transport Department. Member Board of Revenue.

Since the order has been passed by the Joint Transport Commissioner, in exercise of his powers conferred under section 19 of the Act, in our view, the appeal would lie from this order to the Secretary, Transport Department under rule 18 of the Rules of 1994. The remedy provided under rule 18 of the Rules of 1994 is efficient and in this view of the matter, we find no reason to bypass the remedy available to the petitioner under the law.

However, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 29.4.2008 passed by the Joint Transport Commissioner before the Secretary, Transport Department in appeal under section 26 of the Act of 1994. In case the appeal has become time barred by now, it will be for the petitioner to explain the delay in - 4 - filing the appeal. Needless to say that the time taken by the petitioner in pursuing the present remedy may justify the condonation of period the writ petition remained pending before this Court. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-