ORDER : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Nazakat Ali Hashmi challenging the order dated 01.02.2020 (Annexure P-11), by which the complaint filed against respondent No.4-Ekant Garg has not been entertained by Regional Transport Authority, Sirmour on the ground that this Court vide judgment dated 27.04.2017 passed in CWP No. 240/2010 decided the matter in favour of respondent No.4-Ekant Garg. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that in fact it was not a civil writ petition but a criminal revision with the same number i.e. 240/2010 dated 27.04.2017, wherein the revision petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 03.08.2010 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2 Paonta Sahib, whereby the learned Court below while allowing the Cr.M.A No.189/4 of 2010 filed by respondent No.4- Ekant Garg, under Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, dismissed a similar application filed by the present petitioner i.e. Cr.M.A. No.188/4 of 2010 for delivery of the vehicle in question. The dispute is for taking delivery of the vehicle, which was impounded by the police in connection with FIR No.210, dated 17.06.2010 registered under Section 356, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. After seizure of the vehicle, two applications were filed, one by the present petitioner and another by respondent No.4. Both applications were decided by common order. 3. The case of respondent No. 4-Ekant Garg was that he had purchased the bus in question from the petitioner and paid full and final payment for the same. Petitioner-Nazakat Ali Hashmi had executed irrevocable power of attorney in favour of respondent No.4 and had also executed a receipt confirming receipt of full and final amount of consideration by him from Ekant Garg. Further case of the Ekant Garg-respondent No. 4 was that the present petitioner handed over the possession of the bus in question alongwith route permit, registration certificate including insurance to him and thereafter, he become owner of the vehicle in question. Further case of the Ekant Garg was that the petitioner had also executed Form Nos. 29 and 30 in his favour for the purpose of transfer of ownership and for registration of the bus in his name and that he was plying the vehicle as per time-table allotted by Regional Transport Officer and he was also paying all taxes regularly. 4. 29 and 30 in his favour for the purpose of transfer of ownership and for registration of the bus in his name and that he was plying the vehicle as per time-table allotted by Regional Transport Officer and he was also paying all taxes regularly. 4. On the contrary, the case set up by the petitioner in application under Section 457 of Cr.PC filed by him was that he was the registered owner of the bus in question, which stood impounded by the police in FIR No.210, dated 17.06.2010, under Section 356, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In this case, the investigation was complete and the custody of the vehicle in question was ordered to be handover to Ekant Garg-respondent No. 4. Both the applications were disposed of by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2 Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur vide order dated 03.08.2010. The application filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the application filed by respondent No.4 was allowed and the custody of the vehicle was ordered to be handed over to him (Ekant Garg). It was this order, which was challenged by the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal revision petition. 5. No doubt, insofar as the question with regard to the custody of the vehicle is concerned, that issue was decided in favour of respondent No.4, but what is being now argued by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had revoked general power of attorney with due notice to respondent No.4 on 28.05.2010. Respondent No.4 not only sold the earlier vehicle on the strength of the power of attorney but also purchased the new vehicle in the name of the petitioner and also got the permit renewed of the said vehicle again in the name of the present petitioner. 6. Though the dispute that was decided by this Court in the above said criminal revision petition in favour of respondent No.4 was only with regard to custody of the vehicle No.HP-17-9786, chassis No.359350UPU-016110 but the said dispute ended with the custody of the vehicle being given to respondent No.4. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the criminal case is ended with a compromise between the petitioner and respondent No.4. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the criminal case is ended with a compromise between the petitioner and respondent No.4. It is argued that since the registration of the new vehicle has been obtained in the name of the petitioner without his consent, that is being plied by respondent No.4 regularly, if any untoward accident is taken place resulted into any casualties, the present petitioner could be made liable to pay the compensation. 7. The question that calls for determination is whether respondent No.4 could have again purchased the new vehicle in the name of the petitioner without his consent and whether the permit could have been issued on that new vehicle in the name of the petitioner without his consent. All these are the matters of inquiry and, therefore, while clarifying that the judgment of this Court dated 27.04.2017 passed in Cr. Revision No.240/2010 would have no bearing on such inquiry to be conducted by Regional Transport Authority, Sirmaour. We dispose of this writ petition requiring the petitioner to again approach the Regional Transport Authority, Sirmour by filing fresh application, who in turn, shall pass an appropriate order thereon after affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No.4. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.