JUDGMENT B.R.Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, being opposite party no.2 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhenkanal, has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 30.06.2009 passed in Consumer Complaint No.5 of 2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under Annexure-2, by which direction has been given to refund the road tax which was collected thrice from opposite party no.1 for the same quarter. It is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to opposite party no.1 within 30 days from the date of order. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that opposite party no.1, who was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, was the registered owner of a Mini Bus having registration no.OR-06 B 1271 and was granted permit by State Transport Authority, Odisha, Cutack to ply the bus. The said permit was valid for 119 days starting from 16.01.2005 to 14.05.2005. But, opposite party no.1 could not ply his vehicle because of strong opposition from the existing and/or old permit holders of Dhenkanal Bus Owners Association on the route specified in the permit. Opposite party no.1 brought the said fact to the notice of the Collector, Superintendent of Police and RTO, Dhenkanal and because of intervention of the Superintendent of Police, at a belated stage, he could run the bus only for a period of 15 days out of the total period of 119 days. Before expiry of the road permit, opposite party no.1 applied for fresh permit before the RTO, Dhenkanal, as the bus in question was having sitting capacity of less than 25 persons. It is alleged that due to negligence on the part of the petitioner, opposite party no.1 could not ply his vehicle. The deficiency of service was brought to the notice of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, who in turn, vide order dated 30.06.2009 in Consumer Complaint Case No.05 of 2008, directed the petitioner to refund the road tax, which had been collected thrice from opposite party no.1 for the same quarter, and awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- in favour of opposite party no.1 to be paid within 30 days from the date of order. Hence this application. 3. Mr. Hence this application. 3. Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by opposite party no.1 alleging deficiency of service by the petitioner, and consequential award of compensation in the order impugned dated 30.06.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No.5 of 2008 under Annexure-2 cannot sustain in the eye of law, particularly when the same is nullity and goes to the root of the matter. It is further contended that the impugned order dated 30.06.2009 with regard to refund of tax also cannot sustain in the eye of law, as the same is without jurisdiction and contrary to the statute governing the field. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in the cases of S.P. Goel v. Collector of Stamps, Delhi, 1996 AIR(SC) 839 ; Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director, Health Services, Haryana, 2013 10 SCC 136 ; Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. Vidya Chetal, 2019 9 SCC 83 ; as well as of this Court in Pravat Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa,2015 2 OrissaLR 963 . 4. While entertaining this application, question of maintainability was raised and this Court on 15.09.2015 passed order to the following effect:- Heard Mr. B. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this application assailing the order dated 30.06.2009 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Dhenkanal in Consumer Complaint No.5/2008 un der Annexure-2. Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner receiv ed the notice of Consumer Dispute Execution Case No.14/2010 wherein it was directed to appear on 30.07.2015. He raises a preliminary question with regard to the maintainability of the Cons umer Complaint case. He submits that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, Dhenkanal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Motor Vehicle Act in view of the judgm ent of the apex Court in S.P. Goel v. Collector of Stamps, Delhi, 1996 AIR(SC) 839 and Jagmitta r Sain Bhagat and others v. Director, Health Services, Haryana and others, 2013 10 SCC 136 . It is stated that the question of law can be raised at any point of time. It is stated that the question of law can be raised at any point of time. If any order has bee n passed in Consumer Dispute Case in 2009 and against the order Execution case is pending in that view of the matter the question of jurisdiction can also be raised at any stage of the proceeding. Issue notice to opposite party no.1 by Registered Post with A.D., requisites for which shall be filed by Monday (21.09.2015) fixing a short returnable date. Misc. Case No.15226 of 2015 Issue notice and above. Accept one set of process fee. As an interim measure, there shall be stay of further proceeding in Consumer Dispute E xecution Case No.14/2010 pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhenka nal till 14.10.2015. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. 5. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed requisites for issuance of notice to opposite party no.1 by registered post with A.D., pursuant to which notice was issued to opposite party no.1 on 25.09.2015 fixing 14.10.2015 as date of appearance. As such, no notice was issued to opposite parties no.2 and 3, as they are proforma opposite parties in the matter. On 14.10.2015, though A.D. was not returned from opposite party no.1, this Court passed following orders:- Call this matter after Puja Holidays as prayed for. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till 12.11.2015. Registry to issue reminder to the postal authorities for obtaining A.D. from Opposite party no.1 in the meanwhile. In the meantime, A.D. was returned from opposite party no.1 after valid service. Thereafter, this Court on 12.11.2015 passed order to the following effect:- Though A.D. has been returned from opposite party no.1 after valid service, none has entered appearance on his behalf. In any case, another opportunity is given to opposite party no.1 to participate in the proceeding. Put up this matter two weeks after. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till 26.11.2015. Again on 26.11.2015, this Court passed order to the following effect:- W.P.(C). No. 15884 of 2015 26.11.2015 As prayed for on behalf of Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, call this matter one week after. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till 11.12.2015. Put up this matter two weeks after. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till 26.11.2015. Again on 26.11.2015, this Court passed order to the following effect:- W.P.(C). No. 15884 of 2015 26.11.2015 As prayed for on behalf of Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, call this matter one week after. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till 11.12.2015. As Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.1 was not filed, the interim order passed earlier was continued from time to time, and when the matter was listed on 11.12.2015, this Court passed order to the following effect:- This Court by order dated 15.09.2015 issued notice to opposite party no.1 by Registered Post with A.D. Though A.D. was back after valid service on 15.10.2015, none entered appearance for opposite party no.1 on 12.11.2015 and on the same day another opportunity was given to opposite party no.1 to participate in the proceeding. In spite of such opportunity, today when the matter is called, none also entered appearance for opposite party no.1. Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner submits that perhaps petitioner no.1 is not appearing in view of the pleadings made in paragraph-M of the writ petition . Therefore, instead of awaiting the appearance opposite party no.1, the matter should be decided in accordance with law. Call this matter three weeks after. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till 13.01.2016. In spite of opportunity being given to opposite party no.1, since nobody entered appearance, when the matter was listed on 13.01.2016, this Court passed order to the following effect:- In spite opportunity being given to opposite party no.1, he is not appearing in the matter till date. Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Department states that h e will take fresh steps for service of notice on opposite party no.1 through substituted service of notice under Order 5, Rule-20 within a week, so that notice can be made sufficient as against opposite party no.1. He is permitted to do so. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till 03.02.2016. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 03.02.2016, this Court passed order to the following effect:- In compliance with the order dated 13.01.2016 Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner files the paper publication in daily Samaj in Court today. On perusal of the same, it appears that the date has been fixed today. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 03.02.2016, this Court passed order to the following effect:- In compliance with the order dated 13.01.2016 Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner files the paper publication in daily Samaj in Court today. On perusal of the same, it appears that the date has been fixed today. The said paper publication be kept on record. Call this matter two weeks after. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till 04.03.2016. 6. When the matter was listed today, i.e., 05.02.2020, in spite of notice being made sufficient as against opposite party no.1 by registered post with A.D. and thereafter by issuing paper publication under Order 5 Rule-20 of CPC, since none has entered appearance and in the meantime more than five years have passed, this Court, applying the principles of doctrine of non-traverse, proceeded with the hearing of the matter on the basis of pleadings available on record. 7. The crux of the matter, which is to be considered by this Court is whether the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has jurisdiction to pass order on the basis of the complaint lodged by opposite party no.1 before it under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, and on that basis the order dated 30.06.2009 in Consumer Complaint No.5 of 2008 and consequential order in C.D. Execution Case No.14 of 2010 can be passed or not. 8. 8. For just and proper adjudication of the case, Section 2(b), (c), (d), (g), (o) and Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are extracted hereunder: 2.(b) "complainant" means- (i) a consumer; or (ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act,1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) the Central Government or any State Government; (iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest; (v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative, who or which makes a complaint; (c) "complaint" means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that (i) an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by (any trader or service provider); (ii) the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him suffer from one or more defects; (iii) the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect; (iv) a trader or the service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods or for the services mentioned in the complaint, a price in excess of the price- (a) Fixed by or under any law for the time being in force; (b) displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods; (c) displayed on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law for the time being in force; (d) agreed between the parties; (v) goods which will be hazardous to life and safety when used, are being-offered for sale to the public- (A) in contravention of any standard relating to safety of such goods as required to be complied with, by or under any law for the time being in force; (B) if the trader could have known with due diligence that the goods so offered are unsafe to the public; (vi) services which are hazardous or likely to be hazardous to life and safety of the public when used, are being offered by the service provider which such person could have known with due diligence to be injurious to life and safety; with a view to obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act; . (d) "consumer" means any person who- (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person; (but does not include a person who avails of such services of any commercial purpose; xxx xxx xxx (g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service; (0) "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential (users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service; xxx xxx xxx 11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.--(I) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.--(I) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,- (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 9. In order to satisfy the requirement of definition of Consumer as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there must be transaction for consideration under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the said Act. The definition also contemplates pre-expenses of a completed transaction of a sale and purchase. Therefore, the prime consideration is whether the petitioner is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act so as to attract the provisions of the said Act, otherwise, the Act itself is not applicable. Consequence thereof, any order passed thereof is nullity in the eye of law. In view of the statutory provisions mentioned above, it is made clear that the Act is made to deal with the rights of the consumers wherein good or services have been defined under the said Act. Therefore, the forum created under the Consumer Protection Act cannot deal with the issue concerning the discharge of statutory functions by the statutory authorities. 10. Non-Plying of bus, in spite of valid permit is a matter under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rules framed thereunder. Granting of permit is a statutory function conferred upon the statutory authority under the said Act and Rules framed thereunder. 10. Non-Plying of bus, in spite of valid permit is a matter under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rules framed thereunder. Granting of permit is a statutory function conferred upon the statutory authority under the said Act and Rules framed thereunder. Consequentially, if any tax has been deposited, in that case, the permit holder is obliged under law to deposit the same. Therefore, any person aggrieved by any omission or commission on the part of the permit granting authority can prefer appeal/revision before the specified authority under the statute. The M.V. Act is a self contained code and provides appealable and revisable forums under the statute. If for any reason, the petitioner could not be able to ply the vehicle, after having deposited tax for that purpose, and claimed for refund of the same, he has to approach the competent forum under the M.V. Act and Rules framed thereunder. The permit granting authority is not a service provider and, therefore, the person, who makes an application to the said authority for permit, is not a consumer. Refund of tax is governed by the provisions of Orissa Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1975 and Orissa Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 1976. Opposite party no.1 paid the tax in view of the statutory provisions governing the field. As such, granting of permit and collection of tax from motor vehicle are all statutory in nature and the said functions are not discharged for consideration. 11. In the case at hand, the existing operators filed Misc. Case No.24 of 2005 before the State Transport Authority regarding timing allotted to opposite party no.1. Thereafter, the State Transport Authority, after hearing the parties, issued NOC for issuance of permit to opposite party no.1. Then, opposite party no.1 applied for temporary permit before the petitioner, which was granted for 119 days starting from 16.01.2005 to 14.05.2005. If the statutory authority has acted in consonance with the provisions applicable to such authority, it cannot be said that the same will come within the meaning of the provisions contained under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, nor can it be said that there was deficiency of service and, therefore, the Act is applicable to opposite party no.1. 12. As it appears, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhenkanal has lost sight of the provisions contained under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, which is extracted hereunder:- 3. 12. As it appears, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhenkanal has lost sight of the provisions contained under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, which is extracted hereunder:- 3. Act not in derogation of any other law.- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it appears that Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhenkanal has passed the order in derogation of the provisions contained under the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules framed thereunder. 13. In the case of S.P. Goel mentioned supra, the apex Court considered the provisions contained under the Registration Act and Stamp Act vis- -vis Consumer Protection Act and, while construing the provisions contained under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, held that the person presenting documents for registration is not the consumer within the ambit of the said Act. It is further held that the officers appointed under Registration Act and Stamp Act do not render any service within the meaning of the Act because they perform statutory duties which are at least quasi-judicial, consequentially, the Consumer Protection Act is not applicable to the authorities under the Registration Act and Stamp Act. 14. In Jagmittar Sain Bhagat mentioned supra, the apex Court held that transaction with State or its instrumentalities, the government servant is not covered by definition of consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d), and, therefore, the application before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is not maintainable. Accordingly, their Lordships further held that jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a court or tribunal by acquiescence or waiver, if it otherwise does not have jurisdiction and the object of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to provide better protection of interest of consumers relating to goods, unfair trade practices, redressal against unscrupulous exploitation, right to consumer education etc. 15. In Vidya Chetal mentioned supra, the apex Court in paragraph-21 held as follows: 21. At the cost of repetition, we may note that those exactions, like tax and cess, levied as a part of common burden or for a specific purpose, generally may not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. 15. In Vidya Chetal mentioned supra, the apex Court in paragraph-21 held as follows: 21. At the cost of repetition, we may note that those exactions, like tax and cess, levied as a part of common burden or for a specific purpose, generally may not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. However, those statutory fees, levied in lieu of service provided, may in the usual course be subject matter of consumer forum s jurisdiction provided that there is a deficiency in service , etc. In view of the law discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are not applicable to the disputes of the present nature. Thereby, the order so passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhenkanal cannot sustain in the eye of law, as the same is without jurisdiction and nullity. 16. So far as maintainability of the writ petition as against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is concerned, in Committee of Management v. Vice Chencellor, 2009 AIR(SCW) 398 , the apex Court in paragraph-21 held as follows:- 21. Furthermore, when an order has been passed by an authority without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice, the superior courts shall not refuse to exercise their jurisdiction although there exists an alternative remedy. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, 1999 AIR(SC) 22 , the apex Court in paragraph-15 held as follows: 15. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement or any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged . Similar view has also been taken in Guruvayoor Devaswom managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan, 2003 7 SCC 546 . 17. Similar view has also been taken in Guruvayoor Devaswom managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan, 2003 7 SCC 546 . 17. Referring to the aforementioned judgments of the apex Court, this Court, had also in Pravat Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa,2015 2 OrissaLR 963 , held that even if there is availability of alternative remedy, since the court had considered the matter having no jurisdiction, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain such application because it goes to the root of the matter. 18. In view of the facts and circumstances, as well as proposition of law, as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhenkanal in Consumer Complaint No.5 of 2008 under Annexure-2 dated 30.06.2009 and consequential initiation of proceeding in CD (Execution) No.14 of 2010 in Annexure-3 arising out of Consumer Complaint No.05 of 2008 cannot sustain in the eye of law, as the same are without jurisdiction and nullity. Thereby, the same are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. 19. The writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.