An application for setting aside an ex parte assessment order is maintainable even if there is no specific provision for it in the Act, as tribunals and bodies have ancillary or incidental powers necessary to discharge their functions effectively and do justice between parties.

Anshuman Singh, J.

1. By means; of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26-2-1992 passed by the respondent no. 1 rejecting the application for setting aside the ex parte assessment order

2. We have heard Sri A. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, who represents all the respondents. Since there is no private party and with the consent of the counsel for the parties and also as provided under the second proviso to rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the rules of the court, the petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. Facts giving rise to the present petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is the owner of vehicle no. U.T.N. 4793 which was being plied on the basis of permanent stage carriage permit no. S.T. 781 on the Varanasi- Dharauli via Bein-Chandauli route which falls within the region of the Regional Transport Authority, Varanasi- Petit;oner has been paying passenger tax and road tax on lump sum basis; as contemplated under rule 5 of the U. P. Motor Gadi (Yatri Kar) Niyamwawali, 1962 and according to him no default was made in payment of the same. It has further been alleged that the petitioners' permits was renewed till 1984 and thereafter temporary permits were issued from time to time pending disposal of the renewal application. It is alleged that since the petitioner was granted no temporary permit after 20th March, 1989 he surrendered the entire papers and according to the petitioner he did not ply his vehicle during the period 20-3-1989 to 4-5- 1990 and 5-5-1990 to 3-9-1990. It has further been alleged that during the aforesaid period, no complaint was made for plying the vehicle by the Transport department. It has been alleged that without any intimation/notice to the petitioner, an ex parte assessment order appears to have been passed against the petitioner under which a liability of Rs. 55,246 00 for the period 20-3-1989 to 4-5-1990 and 5-5-1990 to 3-9-1990 has been created. It has also been alleged that inspite of the repeated requests made by the petitioner, the copy of ex parte assessment order which was passed without any opportunity to the petitioner was not supplied by the respondents to the petitioner. Since the ex parte assessment order was passed without any opportunity to the petitioner and he 'was never afforded any opportunity to contest the assessment proceedings and after coming to know about the ex parte assessment order, he made application dated 26-2-1992 before the respondent no 1 for setting aside the ex parte assessment order, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The said application filed by the petitioner dated 26-2-1992 was rejected by the respondent no 1 on the same day on the ground that there was no provision for review under the Act, a copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure "2" to the writ petition

3. Mr. A. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the decision of this court in the case of Shyam Behari Tewari v. Goods Tax Officer, Allahabad, 1985 UPTC 638, the passenger Tax Officer, Varanasi, respondent no. 1 was bound to entertain the application for setting aside the ex parte assessment order which was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the order dated 26-2-1992 refusing to reopen the assessment order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed.

4. It would not be out of place t? refer to certain facts of the case of Shyam Behari Tewari (supra). In title said case an ex parte order of assessment was passed by the Goods Tax Officer which was sought to be quashed in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A Division Bench of this court declined to Interfere in the said case on the ground of alternative remedy as the ex parte order passed by the Goods Tax Officer was appeallable order under sect