SATYESHWAR ROY, J.

1. One Shila Ambasta while travelling on a scooter on 154-1989 from Kutchery Road to Kokar in the town of Ranchi was hit by a lorry bearing registration No. DEL 1810. Shila fell down and was crushed by the lorry. She died, the petitioners being the legal representatives of Shila Ambasta made ready and affidavited an application under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for filing before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi (Respondent No. 2, the Claims Tribunal). A copy of the application is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. When the lawyer went on 28-6-1989 in the office of Claims Tribunal to file the application, it was not accepted. The petitioners moved the Claims Tribunal and prayed for accepting the same but it refused to accept the same by observing that it had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The petitioners learnt that Claims Tribunal was not entertaining any application filed under S.92-A or S.110-A of the Act and all pending cases were being transferred to the different Civil Courts subordinate to Judicial Commissioner. In these circumstances, the petitioners filed this writ petition praying for issuing appropriate writ directing Claims Tribunal to accept claim petitions. It may be noticed that Ss.92-A and 110-A of 1939 Act, correspond to Ss.140 and 165 respectively of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein to be referred to as the Act of 1988).

2. The case was adjourned to enable the learned Government Advocate to seek instructions in the matter. On 29-8-1989 when the case was listed for admission, a copy of the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7492 of 1988 on 10th March, 1989: (reported in 1989 BLT (Rep) 398) was produced for our perusal. From the judgment it appeared that Bench of this Court at Patna held that the judicial officers, who have been conferred with the power of the Claims Tribunal have no jurisdiction to entertain claims and if "any claim case has been entertained by any such judicial officer, that will be deemed to be in a Civil Court and accordingly transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction". It restrained the Courts conferred with the power of the Claims Tribunal from proceeding with the hearing of any claims case and directed for transferring all such cases to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

3. A Bench at Ranchi after hearing the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties was of the opinion that the correctness of the judgment required reconsideration. The writ petition was admitted and it was ordered that it shall be heard by a larger Bench. This is how this case been listed before the Full Bench.

4. C. W.J.C.No. 7492 of 1988 (reported in 1989 BLT (Rep) 398) was filed at Patna as a public interest litigation in which the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal to entertain and decide claim application was challenged. On 3-10-1988 that case was taken up for hearing at the admission stage when the learned Government Advocate prayed for time for obtaining instructions. The case was adjourned. On 3-11-1988 when the case was listed, the petitioner who appeared in person and the learned Government Advocate at Patna were heard. The learned Government Advocate had not received any instruction as to whether notification as contemplated under S.110 of the Act has been issued or not. The Bench ordered for listing the case after one month so that meanwhile if no notification had been issued, necessary notification may be issued. No notification issued by the State Government under S.110 was brought on record. The Bench after noticing the various sections of the Act observed as follows:-

"It has clearly contemplated constitution of a Tribunal of special jurisdiction. Such constitution has to be by a notification of the State Government. A person appointed to the Tribunal as a member or the Chairman shall be a member or the Chairman of the Tribunal and nothing else. The law available in the langua