Sunita Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present writ petition arises out of an order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

3. Before dealing with the merits of the case, the question arose as to whether the writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India could be maintainable against the order passed by the motor Accident claims Tribunal keeping in view of the judgment of the Apex Court of Civil Appeal No. 2545 of 1009 Radhey Shyam and another V. Chhabi Nath and others, where in it has been held that the judicial order of Civil Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Sri Rahul Sahai, learned Counsel for the petitioner referring to judgment of the Apex Court in Radhey Shyam (supra) submits that a distinction has been carved out between the Civil Court and a Tribunal. Mere reading of paragraph 10, 11 and 21 of the said pronouncement makes it clear that the order of Civil Court stand on a different footing from the orders of a Tribunal.

5. With reference to the provision of section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Motor