A. R. TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) NO light, said Milton in paradise Lost, Tbut rather darkness visible. But Courts determined to secure harmony and spurn antinomy between law and justice search light' in lexicon of law in a surge of an urge to say no darkness, but only light visible. In such determination, resting on linchpin of epicerastic exercise, Courts bear in mind that law has to enchisel flaw and ensure flow in doctrinal direction. After all, no one can have a droit in recourse to opposite course. This inbred intendment aptly takes us to the issue to be unknotted. ( 2 ) THE issue is manifest conflict in two decisions of equal vigour. ( 3 ) ONE of us (Honble Shukla, J.), sitting single, found, while hearing this criminal revision presented by the State under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the code) against the order dated 24-7-1996 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Indore (Motor Vehicle Magistrate) in O. A. No. 11471/96, thereby directing release in purported exercise of power under Section 457 of the Code, of Passenger Bus No. MP 09-5-1820 plying between Gwalior and Indore and seized and detained by the Taxation Authority (The Transport Inspector) on 1877-1996 in terms of Section 16 (3) of the M. P. Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (For short Adhiniyam) on the fulcrum of non-possession of, valid permit, as required under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (for short The Act) and non-payment of tax leviable under the Act, on supratnama of 9 lakhs, supported by surety of equal value, on specified conditions, discordant sound in two Divisional Bench decisions-One: Brahmanand v. State of M. P. decided by Honble Kokje and Shukia, JJ. Holding in M. P. No. 1388/92 on 2-12-1993 that a Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction would, therefore, have jurisdiction to grant temporary custody of the vehicle under the Code of Criminal Proceduret even when seized and detained under Section 16 (3) of the Adhiniyam and two Durgaprasad v. M. N. Gupta and Others, F. A. No. 116/1971 decided by Honble G. P. Singh and C. P. Sen, JJ. holding in F. A. arising out of suit for damages on 26-2-1975 that A Magistrate has no jurisdiction underthat provision to release the vehicle seized under Section 18 (3) of the Act (M. P. Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Goods) Act, 1962, repealed by Adhiniyam of 1991 in terms of Section 26) and forwarded the case on 24-2-1997 to be laid before Honble the Chief Justice to constitute Full Bench to resolve the conflict and opine as to which of the two sounds in regard to yes or not to the jurisdiction of Criminal Court has seniority to law i. e. Adhiniyam vis-a-vis Code. ( 4 ) AS noted in proceedings of 24-3-1997, tax, as leviable, is said to have been paid by the Non- applicant (owner of the vehicle) after securing release on Supratnama and surety. This purpose, as envisaged under Section 16 (3) of Adhiniyam, i. e. seizure and detention for the realisation of tax due, thus, appears to have been achieved. ( 5 ) THE issue before us is to determine as to whether or not Criminal Court has jurisdiction to. release vehicle, even temporarily on Supratnama under provisions of the code when seized by the Taxation Authority or by any other officer, authorised by the State Government in this behalf on the ground of specified faults and defaults and thus, to decide as to which of the aforesaid two decisions laid down the correct law and should hold the field hereafter? The allied question is whether order dated 24-7-1996 and consequent Supratnama are, irrespective of determination of the aforesaid issue, liable to be incinerated at this distance of time after undisputed payment of fax as was due. The submission on 24-7-1997 before Single Bench was that the issue, after discharge of liability of tax, had become academical. True it is that law cannot run smooth course in state of tenebrosity. When there is a question of enormity of absence or presence of jurisdiction of Criminal Court larger Bench like this has to supply the answer. ( 6 ) BOTH the sides have filed synopsis in support of their respective stands. We have heard at length Mr. Girish Desai learned Government Advocate for the applicant and Mr. R. K. Bhadang, learned Counsel for the Non-applicant in 17-4-1998. The main point pressed by Mr. Desai is remedy cannot be elsewhere and recourse to provisions of Adhiniyam is inevitable. We have heard at length Mr. Girish Desai learned Government Advocate for the applicant and Mr. R. K. Bhadang, learned Counsel for the Non-applicant in 17-4-1998. The main point pressed by Mr. Desai is remedy cannot be elsewhere and recourse to provisions of Adhiniyam is inevitable. He placed reliance on The Transport Commissioner Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad and Another v. Sardar All and Others and added that scheme of law luculently spelt out exclusive jurisdiction under the Adhiniyam and exclusion of jurisdiction under the Code. He concluded by submission that decision of Durga Prasad (supra) laid down the correct law and decision of Brahmanand (supra) needed to be overruled. Mr. Bhadang on the other hand took shelter under decision of Brahmanand labelling it as in accord with Adhiniyam and argued that Section 19 of the Adhiniyam manifested that jurisdiction of Civil Courts alone was taken away and Rules 16 and 17 of M. P. Motor Yan Karadhan Rules (For short Rules) further fortified the view that jurisdiction of Criminal Courts to consider release of vehicle in such seizure and detention subsisted. He added that decision of Durga Prasad needed to be held as bad in law. A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 322 is pressed into service. ( 7 ) THE stage is now set to focus attention on relevant provisions of Adhiniyam, Rules and Code. We find it apt to quote the same. (i) Sections 16 (3) and (4) provide as under: (3) The Taxation Authority or any officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf may if it he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used without payment of tax, penalty or interest due seize and detain such motor vehicle and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any step as may be considered proper for the temporary safe custody of such motor vehicle and for the realisation of tax due. (4) Where as motor vehicle has been seized and detained under Sub-section (3), the owner or the person incharge of such vehicle may apply to the Taxation Authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant documents for the release of the vehicle and if such authority or officer after verification of such documents, is satisfied that no amount of tax is due in respect of that vehicle may be an order in writing release such vehicle. ' Sub-section (4), inserted by Act 10 of 1993, requires application for release of the vehicle to Taxation Authority or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government. It does not speak of Criminal Court. (ii) Section 20 of Adhiniyam, ex-tracted below, provides an appeal also against the seizure of motor vehicle under Section 16 on payment of amount of tax and penalty levied. 20 Appeal Any person: (a) aggrieved by an order made or levy of tax or for penalty imposed under Section 13, or (b) aggrieved by the seizure ofmotor vehicle made under Section 16, or (c) aggrieved by any order passed under this Act, may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner appeal to the prescribed authority, who shall, after giving such person and the Taxation Authority an opportunity of being heard, dispose of the said appeal and the decision thereon shall be final: Provided that no appeal shall be entertained unless the amount tax and penalty levied, in respect of which the appeal had been preferred has been paid. (iii) Rules 165 and d17 and 1801 entry and search (1) Any officer of Transport Department not below the rank on Transport Sub-Inspector or an officer of the Police Department not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police may exercise the powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act. (2) All searches made under Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974 ). 17. Procedure for seizure and detention of the motor vehicle in case of non-payment of tax- 91. (2) All searches made under Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974 ). 17. Procedure for seizure and detention of the motor vehicle in case of non-payment of tax- 91. The memorandum of seizure and the order of seizure and detention of motor vehicle under Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act shall be made in Forms U-1 and U-2 respectively, and co-pies thereof shall be served on the persons from whose possessions or control such motor vehicle has been seized or detained. , (2) The motor vehicle seized and detained shall be kept in safe custody of the nearest Police Station or at any other place at the discretion motor vehicle of the Taxation Authority. (3) The vehicle detained shall be released by the officer or the Taxation Authority seizing it on payment of tax, penalty and interest due. (18) (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by any officer under the Act or these rules against which an appeal lies, may within thirty days of the days of the knowledge of the order prefer an appeal to the Transport Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior. It is clear that vehicle can he released by the officer or the Taxation Authority seizing it on payment of tax, penalty and interest due. This also does not speak of any power of Criminal Courts. (i) (a)Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read as under: 451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases- When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of much property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. 457. 457. (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property 0 r the delivery of such prophecy to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if suchperson cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such condition if any as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation. 'manifestly, Section 451 of the Code is attracted when property is produced before any Criminal Court and orders are necessary pending conclusion of the inquiry of trial. Section 457 of the Code is applicable when property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, but its seizure by a Police Officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of the Code. Section 102 of the Code contains power of Police Officer to seize certain property. vi (b) Sections 4 and 5 of the Code are as under:4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws. (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to and enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. 5. Saving-Nothing conditioned in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary affect any special or local-law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. 5. Saving-Nothing conditioned in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary affect any special or local-law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. The provisions of special or local law thus, remain unaffected by anything contained in the Code. ( 8 ) ARTICLE 246 of the Constitution of India provides three lists known as Union List, State List' and Concurrent List. Seventh Schedule containing these lists, shows that Entries 56 and 57 pertain to such taxes and are in the State List. The State has enacted the Adhiniyam and Rules. Vires are not challenged. Other officer is to be duly authorised. ( 9 ) THE T1adhiniyam and Rules indicate the matter, manner and steps. It is not contended that the aforesaid vehicle was produced or its seizure was by a Police Officer and reported to the Magistrate. Absent this, Section 451 or 457 of the Code, to be operative prior to conclusion, do not and cannot came into play and recourse would destroy or dent the provisions of Adhiniyam and Rules. Law does not sanction such a destructive course. ( 10 ) SUB-SUCTION (4) of Section 16 of the Adhiniyam is not considered in the case of Brahmanand (supra) but is considered in case of Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal v. State of M. P. and Others, M. P. No. 1025 of 1993, decided by the Division Bench on 5-3-1993, which suffered mortality at admission stage after hearing both the sides on observation that T1the petitioner must first exhaust the internal remedy under the Adhiniyam. The revision petition, filed by Babulal (Cr. Revn. No. 10 of 1992 decided by the Single Bench on 8-2-1993) had the fate of summary dismissal after consideration of Section 45 1/457 of the Code on conclusion that T1the application for release of the vehicle on Supratnama was itself not maintainable. By the common order dated 24-2-1994, rendered by the Division Bench in (Krishna Kumar v. State of M. P. and Others) and (Krishna Kumar v. Virendra Kumar), it was held that: On 15-10-1993, petitioner filed an application before the A. C. J. M. Indore for releasing the vehicle u/ss 451 and 457 of the Cr. By the common order dated 24-2-1994, rendered by the Division Bench in (Krishna Kumar v. State of M. P. and Others) and (Krishna Kumar v. Virendra Kumar), it was held that: On 15-10-1993, petitioner filed an application before the A. C. J. M. Indore for releasing the vehicle u/ss 451 and 457 of the Cr. P. C. The application was clearly misconceived, since the conditions prescribed in the provisions did not exist. It is also stated in the order that The judgment makes it dear that where a vehicle is seized u/s. 16 (3) of the Act, the owner of the vehicle has a right to represent before the Taxation Authority with relevant documents u/s 16 (4) of the Act and if he fails to satisfy the Taxation Authority, he has a right to file an appeal u/s 20 of the Act and the same are effective, efficacious and, alternative remedies. This was again reinterated in M. P. No. 1617/1992. The owner of the vehicle was, as ruled m the aforesaid order, required to resort to Section 16 (4) and on un-success, to Section 20 of the Adhiniyam. These decisions clearly rule that one should pursue the remedy provided under Adhiniyam. Recourse to Section 451 or 457 of the Code is neither possible, nor permissible. ( 11 ) SECTION 19 of the "adhiniyam" or Rules 16/17 of the Rulest do not even impliedly suggest availability of remedy under the Code. The Adhiniyam and Rules are self-contained Code and do not permit recourse to other law like the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of vehicle. The provision spells out as to who is to be approachedt and how is the Authority to be approached. This then excludes resort to Section 451 or 457 of the Code. There is thus, no tenebrosity to be torn. ( 12 ) NOW we may notice other case law as well. Sections 16 (4) and 20 of Adhiniyam and Rules 16 and 17 of Rules have conferred power on the taxation Authority or any officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf to release vehicle seized and detained under Section 16 (3) of the Adhiniyam. Section 20 provides an appeal on payment of amount of tax and penalty levied. Rules also require payment of interest due. Section 20 provides an appeal on payment of amount of tax and penalty levied. Rules also require payment of interest due. To permit recourse to Section 451 or 457 of the Code before a Criminal Court would occasion an alteration of the material of which the Adhiniyam is woven which is impermissible. Lord Denning in Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher, stated in classic terms that A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases. ' No creases are shown and none is visible. Hence, there is no question of ironing out. One has to adder to the scheme of law. If power is conceded to Taxation Authority or any authorised officer, it cannot reside in any other Forum like Criminal Court. Mr. Desai has stated that so far no officer is authorised. However, even when a police officer is given authority, he has to operate under Adhiniyam and not under the Code, Seizure is in terms of Forms U-1 and U-2 (Rule 17 ). ( 13 ) THE question is in regard to Tax. Latham, C. J. of the High Court of Australia in Mathews v. Chicory Marketing Board, explained that Taxt implies compulsory exaction of money by proper authority for public purposes. Now if an owner of a vehicle evades or avoids exaction and imperils public purposes he on seizure and detention of vehicle should face the compulsion of resorting to remedy under Adhiniyam. No other law can provide protective umbrella. The authority proceeds when it has reason to believe that tax is evaded. In The Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Bhagwan Industries (P) Ltd. , it is explained that words reason to believe convey that there must be some rational basis to form the belief. After all no power is exercisable arbitrarily or capriciously. Adhiniyam prescribes the mode. Nathusingh v. state of M. P. and Another placing reliance on Nazir Ahmad v. being Emperor, it is held that if certain thing is to be done in a certain way then it has to be done in that way alone and all other methods should be taken as forbidden. Recourse to Criminal Court, in the absence of production of report, should be held as forbidden. ( 14 ) IN Commissioner of Income Tax. Recourse to Criminal Court, in the absence of production of report, should be held as forbidden. ( 14 ) IN Commissioner of Income Tax. Bombay and Others v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. and Others, it is observed that discretion must be exercised only by the authority to which it is committed; Hence discretion to release the vehicle has to be exercised only by the specified authority or officer and none else. In State of Haryana v. Smt. Darshan Devi and Others, it is held that law must keep the promise to justice. This is how law operates to do justice between parties. As held in American Home Products Corporation v. Mac Laboratories Put. Ltd. and another interpretation of statutes should not lead to manifest absurdity futility, palpable injustice or absurd inconvenience or anomaly. Power of a Magistrate, as held in State of M. P. v. Sekh Ramzam, is not unlimited and is regulated by law. He cannot order the doing of an act in excess of the power conferred on him by law. ( 15 ) IN M. P. Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam (Naueen Raghunath Karnik v. State of M. P.), the Division Bench of this Court held that Section 20 of the Adhiniyam contains an efficacious and alternative remedy on un-success under Section 16 (4) and aggrieved person has to pursue that course. In Ramsingh and Others v. Gram Panchayat, it is held that when jurisdiction of a Forum is taken away resort to such Forum would be misconceived and an exercise in futility. The decisions eight in number relied on by Mr. Bhadang do not improve his side of the case. In Dinesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Assam and Others, it is held that in interpreting provisions of a statute no words should be considered redundant or surplus. The words employed in Section 16 (4) of the Adhiniyam cannot therefore be considered as redundant or surplus. An application for release of the vehicle thus lies to the Taxation Authority or any authorised officer together with relevant documents on seizure and detention and not to any other Forum including Criminal Court and power vests in such authority to order release on satisfaction that no amount of tax is due". This naturally excludes applicability of Section 451 or 457 of the Code. Remedy list u/s 16 (4) and. thereafter under Section 20 of the Adhiniyam. This naturally excludes applicability of Section 451 or 457 of the Code. Remedy list u/s 16 (4) and. thereafter under Section 20 of the Adhiniyam. Even extraordinary provision like Article 226 of the Constitution of India is normally unavailable when Statutory Forum is available. In State of U. P. and Another v. Labh Chand, it is held that:"when a Statutory Forum or Tribunal is specially created by a statute for redressal of specified grievances of persons on certain matters the High Court should not normally permit such persons to ventilate their specified grievances before it by entertaining petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution is a legal position which is too well-settled. " ( 16 ) IT is thus, clear that recourse to Section 451 or 457 of the Code is unavailable in view of availablity of Statutory Forum in terms pf Sections L6 (4) and 20 of the Adhiniyam. We take it that decision in Brahmanands case (supra), ruling in favour of jurisdiction might have been different if Section 16 (4) was there before the Court. ( 17 ) AN Irish Judge upon his elevation to the Bench took the vow to hold the scales of justice absolutely even. It has to be even. Law cannot be appreciated in devaluated fashion. Even in exercise to excorticate, it is decipher7 able that one does not have option to choose the Forum at with Provisions, like Section 16 (4) of the Adhiniyam and Rules, as extracted above, are emblematical enough to show necessity of seeking remedy and relief under the Adhiniyam. It is futile to think of shortcut, which often proves to be a wrong cut, tinder the Code and is inutile to avoid rigour of Adhiniyam. ( 18 ) COURTS have to act in fair and reasonable manner. In Davis Contractors Ltd. v. Fareham Urban District Court Ci, Lord Radcliffe put it elegantly thus Their actual persons should be allowed to rest in peace. In their place there rises the figure of the fair and reasonable man. And the spokesman of the fair and reasonable man, who represents after all no more that the anthropomorphic conception of justice is and must be the Court itself. We have found intention of Statute. If it is one rous, remedy as held in (1951)2 All E. R. 83421 lies in amending law. But till then, law has to be obeyed. And the spokesman of the fair and reasonable man, who represents after all no more that the anthropomorphic conception of justice is and must be the Court itself. We have found intention of Statute. If it is one rous, remedy as held in (1951)2 All E. R. 83421 lies in amending law. But till then, law has to be obeyed. Jurisdiction cannot be assumed where none existed. No one then can sayt that it is there. Intention of stature is to secure payment of tax. ( 19 ) WHAT thus emerges can be summed up as under: (a) Taxation Authority or any officer authorised by State Government in this behalf can seize and detain a motor vehicle on reason to believe that there is fault or default in payment of amount of tax under Section 16 (3) of Adhiniyam. Even authorised Officer, be it a Police Officer, has to operate under Adhiniyam and not Code. Applicability of certain provision of the Code for search or seizure is a matter of manner and procedure and does not render Sections 451/457 of the Code operative in such cases. (b) Application for release of the vehicle when seized and detained, lies to aforesaid authority and such authority is empowered to release on satisfaction that no tax is due in terms of Section 16 (4) of the Adhiniyam. The object of tax is not liable to be frustrated. (c) Aggrieved person can file an appeal under Section 20 of the Adhiniyam on deposit of amount in question. (d) Except Sections 451 one, 457 of the Code, not other provision is shown to exist for the purpose. But Section 451 of the Code gets attracted only when property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and is concerned with proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 457 of the Code comes into play when seizure is by a Police Officer who reports to a Magistrate under the Code. It empowers the Magistrate to make an order respecting disposal or delivery to the person entitled to the possession thereof. On seizure under Section 16 (3), Section 451 is inapplicable till stage of inquiry or trial in a Criminal Court and Section 457 of the Code cannot be invoked unless seizure is by a Police Officer and is reported under the Code and someone is entitled. On seizure under Section 16 (3), Section 451 is inapplicable till stage of inquiry or trial in a Criminal Court and Section 457 of the Code cannot be invoked unless seizure is by a Police Officer and is reported under the Code and someone is entitled. Person in arrear and in error is not prima facie entitled. These two sections, thus, do not apply till requisite conditions are shown to be satisfied. At the infant stage, recourse to Criminal Court is impermissible. Hence, only Section 16 (4) and Section 20 Adhiniyam held to be efficacious, are applicable. This power cannot be usurped by any Criminal Court. (e) Statutory Forumst have to be approached. Resort to Section 451 or 457 of the Code is thus, impermissible. The Criminal Court thus, does not posses jurisdiction to entertain prayer for interim release of the vehicle and grant relief under the Code. Section 19 or Rules do not indicate existence of jurisdiction of Criminal Court in case of action under Section 16 (3) of the Adhiniyam. Despite Sections 16 (4) and 20 of Adhiniyam, the Non-applicant resorted to Forum under the Code and the Criminal Court held the prayer irrecusable and granted relief of release of the vehicle under umbrella of Brahmanands case (supra ). The Nonapplicant, thus, shaped the case under the Code on assumption that jurisdiction was there on the pattern assumed by the great British explorer, George Mallory. Once he was asked as to why, did he want to climb Mount Everest. To that question he had replied T1because it is there. Now we resolve the conflict and conclude that Criminal Court has not jurisdiction in the light of Sections 16 (4) and 20 of the Adhiniyam for interim release of motor vehicle seized and detained by the specified authority under Section 16 (3) on Supratnama and/or surety as was done in this case. Seizure is for Tax. ( 20 ) EX-CONSEQUENTI, we overrule Brahmanand's decision (supra) as also other decisions taking view that Criminal Court has jurisdiction to consider release of vehicle, seized under Section 16 (3) of the Adhiniyam, under the provisions of the Code and approve Durgaprasads decision (F. A. No. 116/1971) as also the other decisions to the extent of view that in such cases Magistrate lacked jurisdiction. ( 21 ) WE, therefore, hold that the Criminal Court had no jurisdiction to pass order dated 24-7-1996, impugned herein, and to release the vehicle on Supratnama and surety. The Non-applicant was under legal obligation to resort to Section 16 (4) and later Section 20, if occasion arose, of Adhiniyam. All the same, after declaration of law, we do not deem it proper to quash the order dated 24-7- 1996 and consequent Supratnama and supporting surety at this distance of time after payment of the amount of tax as leviable and find it fit to dispose of this Criminal Revision in terms indicated below: (a) Applicant shall have liberty to approach the concerning Court seeking recalling of order dated 24-7-1996 and cancellation of consequent Supratnama and surety on the strength of this order, if the same posed any problem in any proceeding under the law. (b) In case of recalling or cancellation at the instance of the applicant, the Non-applicant shall have freedom to resort to Section 16 (4) or 20 of the Adhiniyam within 15 days from the date of recall or cancellation, seeking condonation of delay on ground of pendency of this Criminal Revision, to obtain order/direction from appropriate authority on merits in conformity with law, if situation so warranted. This Revision Petition, thus, reaches terminal point and stands disposed of as above. ( 22 ) WE, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs as incurred in this case. ( 23 ) IN the face of earlier conflict in decisions and in view of importance of the matter, we direct that the Registrar of this Court shall promptly forward a copy of this order each to the District and Sessions Judges in the jurisdiction of the High Court of this State who, in turn, shall intimate the Magistrate. Judges posted in their respective jurisdiction about this order immediately so as to avoid repetition of such orders and to ensure that Rule of law, and not Rule of Man prevails. This is the only way to destroy darkness' and to see light. The latter has to be visible. Revision disposed accordingly. .