CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No. MEX 4997. That vehicle is a motor car. Previously it was owned by her husband Ganapathi naik, who is the second petitioner. During the ownership of the husband, the second petitioner, the vehicle was checked and found carrying passengers for hire and reward for which he did not have a peimit. In the result, action was taken by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Puttur in accordance with section 33 (1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles act. The explanation of the petitioner was that he did not commit the offence ; that only his wife and servant had travelled on the relevant day when the sub-Inspector checked the same and the driver pleaded guilty before the Magistrate of the charge of driving the vehicle without a valid permit carrying passengers for hire and reward only to avoid complications. That explanation was rejected and the first respondent, the assistant Superintendent of Police, puttur, suspended the registration certificate of the vehicle in question for the period between 12- 3-1979 and 11-7-1979 directing that the petitioner should surrender the registration certificate to him on or before 12-3-1979 and also intimate the place where the vehicle would be garaged during the period of suspension. ( 2 ) THE first petitioner filed an appeal as in the meanwhile she become the registered owner of the vehicle. Her case was that it was the previous owner who had committed the offence and not she and therefore the appeal should be allowed. That explanation for good reason was rejected and the order of the Assistant Superintendent of police, the first respondent, was confirmed by the second respondent, the commissioner for Transport in Karnataka, Bangalore. That was done on 27-6-1979. ( 3 ) IN the meanwhile, there is no evidence of the petitioner having surrendered the registration certificate nor having intimsted the place where the vehicle was garaged during the period of suspension. ( 4 ) IT is also not in dispute that there was no stay order by the appellate authority. In view of the intimation dated 10-7-1979, the first respondent tried to enforce the order he had made earlier as per Annexure-A to the petition. ( 4 ) IT is also not in dispute that there was no stay order by the appellate authority. In view of the intimation dated 10-7-1979, the first respondent tried to enforce the order he had made earlier as per Annexure-A to the petition. In that circumstance, the petitioners have approached this Court under article 226, inter alia, contending that the period of suspension specified in the order having expired, there is no way of enforcing that order which amounts to modifying the order made under section 33 (1) (b) of the Act. ( 5 ) THE contention is liable to be upheld. Whatever may be the merits of the case one way or the other, the fact remains that the first respondent slept over his ordar. if the period specified in the order has expired, nothing in the act provides for the review of that order. ( 6 ) THE argument of the learned government Pleader that the petitioner had not surrendered the registration certificate as directed is no ground to take any other view as nothing prevented the first respondent from enforcing the order by seizing the vehicle after 12-3-1979. ( 7 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. Annexure-C is quashed. Rule is made absolute. Writ Petition is Allowed. --- *** --- .