BIMAL RAJ SETHI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE first point raised is that the writ petition ought not to have been entertained when statutory remedy of appeal was available to the writ petitioner against the impugned decision. The learned Single Judge has rejected that objection on the ground that the said preliminary objection was not raised at the time of admission, but only at the time of final hearing of the writ petition.

(3.) IT is then contended that the writ petitioner had resorted to remedy of writ only after realizing that the statutory remedy of appeal had become time barred. We are of the opinion that this plea has not been taken before the learned Single Judge and for which reason, it cannot be permitted at this belated stage. More so, because the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge is that the impugned decision was passed without authority of law. That decision could be passed only in exercise of powers under Section 80 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and could not be done by invoking Section 72 (2) of the Act, as was done by the appropriate Authority.