JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prayer made in this writ petition is for quashing of the order dated 30th April, 1998 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the registering authority, Allahabad under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act with a further prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to take the possession of the vehicle which is a tractor from the petitioner forcibly.
2. I have gone through the order impugned in the present writ petition and the interim order granted by this Court. Under the order of this Court, the respondent No. 3 has filed counter-affidavit wherein serious allegations have been raised. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that there Js a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order passed by the registering authority under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The order impugned is an order against which an appeal lies and since the counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged, the petitioner should not be relegated to the remedy of statutory appeal after lapse of about four years. He relied upon the decision in Dr. Bal Krishna Agarwal v. State of U. P. and Ors., 1995 (1) AWC 509 (SC) : 1996 (2) UPLBEC 1055 and also a decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in Brijendra Singh Yadav v. State of U. P. and Ors.. 1998 (1) AWC 522 :
1998 (1) UPLBEC 638. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the ratio of the aforesaid two cases are that the petition was admitted seven and half years ago and was pending for final disposal since then, should not be dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. In this case, the ratio of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the petitioner do not apply as the petition is pending for admission and not for disposal. This petition is not an admitted petition as was the case in the cases relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. Secondly, serious disputed question of facts are involved in the present writ petition.
3. This Court, therefore, declines to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. In view of what has been stated above, the petition is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. There is no order as to costs.