5.The main ground of attack is that the respondents have no jurisdiction. But as rightly observed by the learned Judge, the same is a point that can be taken before the appellate authority. The question of jurisdiction that the appellant raises does not go to the root of the matter. Hence, the refusal of the learned Judge to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, in view of the fact that the order impugned in the writ petition was dated 03.12.2015 and the appellant had come up with a writ petition within 30 days (on 22.12.2015) and the same was dismissed by an order dated 29.12.2015, the period from 22.12.2015 upto 07.01.2016, the date of issue of a copy of the order of the learned Judge requires to be excluded in the computation of the period of limitation. Moreover, the appellant immediately filed a writ appeal on 11.01.2016 and we have dismissed it today. Therefore, the period from 22.12.2015 upto the date of issue of a copy of this order shall stand excluded while computing the period of limitation. On the very day on which the appellant files an appeal, the appellate authority is directed to release the vehicle so that the vehicle does not suffer any damage, subject to the appeal being in order. Office is directed to return the original order that was filed along with the writ petition while issuing a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P(MD)Nos.320 and 321 of 2016 are closed.
