JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner purchased a vehicle which was registered on 16.10.2007. It transpires that a notice dated 1.2.2008 was issued by the authority under Section 55(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to show cause why the registration should not be cancelled. The authority, by an order dated 5.2.2008, cancelled the registration of the vehicle in question. 2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said cancellation, preferred an appeal under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appeal was disposed of by the impugned order dated 15.9.2008, directing the prescribed authority to reconsider the matter afresh and grant proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. While remitting the matter to the Prescribed Authority, the Appellate Authority directed that the registration of the petitioner’s vehicle would remain under suspension till the disposal of the objection by the Prescribed Authority meaning thereby, that the petitioner was restrained from plying the vehicle in question. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this part of the order, has filed the present writ petition. 3. Having heard Shri Virendra Bhatia, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General assisted by Nitin Sharma, and Shri Gaurav Bhatia, the learned Counsels for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court finds that the order of the Appellate Authority directing that the registration of the vehicle would remain under suspension is patently without any authority of law and is without jurisdiction. The Appellate Authority gets the power to hear and decide the appeal under Section 36 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 which provides that the Appellate Authority, after giving an opportunity of hearing, may confirm, vary or set-aside the order of the Registering Authority. 4. In the present case, while remitting the matter to the Registering Authority, the Appellate Authority necessarily allows the appeal of the petitioner. Consequently, once an appeal is allowed, the impugned order under challenge before the Appellate Authority was liable to be set-aside. The Appellate Authority could vary the said order, but cannot vary the order by keeping the registration of the vehicle under suspension. Such suspension of the registration certificate, in fact, confirms the order of the Registering Authority. 5. Consequently, once an appeal is allowed, the impugned order under challenge before the Appellate Authority was liable to be set-aside. The Appellate Authority could vary the said order, but cannot vary the order by keeping the registration of the vehicle under suspension. Such suspension of the registration certificate, in fact, confirms the order of the Registering Authority. 5. Consequently, the order of the Appellate Authority, in so far as it remits the matter to the Registering Authority for reconsideration is perfectly correct and, to that extent, the appellate order is correct and does not require any interference since such a direction was in conformity with the principles of natural justice. However, the order keeping the registration of the vehicle under suspension is patently without jurisdiction and, to that extent, the order of the Appellate Authority is incorrect and cannot be sustained and is quashed. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the order of the Registering Authority cancelling the registration of the vehicle in question is quashed. The order of the Appellate Authority directing registration of the vehicle to remain in suspension is also quashed. 7. The writ petition is partly allowed. The Court directs the Registering Authority to decide the objection of the petitioner and pass a fresh order after hearing the parties within six weeks from the date of the production of a certified copy of the order. ————