IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10422 of 2010 =========================================== RAJESH KUMAR, S/O SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR, AT BHAWANIPUR, P.S. SAKARI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI AT PRESENT RESIDENT AT LAKSHMISAGAR, IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT - DARBHANGA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT,PATNA. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, DARBHANGA. =========================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner: Mr. Badri Narayan Singh Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Mr.: Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate =========================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 02. 30.08.2010 Feeling aggrieved by the demand of Rs. 7,51,215/- of the Motor Vehicle Tax and Penalty made by the District Transport Officer on 20th March 2010, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Against the impugned order the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal before the Transport Commissioner. Learned advocate Mr. Badri Narayan Singh has appeared for the petitioner. He has made a grievance that the Transport Commissioner instead of exercising power as 2 appellate authority referred the appeal to the Regional Transport Officer who is not competent to decide the appeal. He has also submitted that the petitioner has raised questions of law which can be decided by the Court of law alone. The appellate authority has no power to decide such questions of law. He has next contended that the authority of the Regional Transport Officer to hear and decide the appeal is confined to the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs. 10,000/-. The Regional Transport Officer has no jurisdiction to consider and decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner. In support thereof he has produced a copy of the Notification dated 2nd May 2008. Rule 18 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 1994 deals with the authorities empowered to hear appeals and revisions. Clause (ii) thereof provides for an appeal to the Regional Transport Officer against the order of the Taxing Officer. The Notification dated 2nd May 2008 relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Singh deals with the power of the Regional Transport Officer under Rule 17 of the Rules i.e. in respect of compounding of the offences under the Ordinance and the Rules. Reliance placed on the Notification dated 2nd May 2008 is clearly misconceived. It is the Regional Transport Officer who is the appellate authority to hear and decide the 3 appeal against the order of the Taxing Officer. Accordingly, the action of the Transport Commissioner to refer the appeal to the Regional Transport Officer for hearing and decision in consonance with Rule 18 Clause (ii) of the Rules of 1994, cannot be questioned. The petitioner having availed of the statutory remedy of appeal, the petition under Article 226 shall not lie. Petition is accordingly disposed of. The appellate authority will hear and decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible without unnecessary delay. S.Sb/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)