Short Note : It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Transport Appellate Authority has committed an error apparent on the face of the record because the High Court's Order only indicated that the order passed by the Appellate Authority earlier was set aside and the appeal was sent back for consideration afresh. If on that day the: respondent No. 3 had no valid permit in his favour or his permit had expired and he had not applied for renewal in time the case of respondent No.3 could not be considered. According to learned counsel what the learned Member of the State Transport Appellate Authority understood from the order of this Court in the earlier miscellaneous petition was apparently erroneous; and the authority was bound to consider the contentions advanced by the appellant with regard to the non-existence of a valid permit in favour of respondent No.3 and in absence of a renewal application the case of respondent No.3 could not be considered. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 contended that the High Court's Order did not revive the order of the Regional Transport Authority as the Regional Transport Authority's order was set aside by the Appellate Authority initially and when the High Court set aside the order of the Appellate Authority but did not direct that the order of the Regional Transport Authority is revived it could not be said, that the permit granted in favour of respondent No.3 had come to end by lapse of time In the alternative it was also contended that even the petitioner's application for renewal has become ineffective as the period for which renewal was sought was over. However, this argument of respondent No.3 also was not 'considered by the State Transport Appellate Authority. ' 3. Held: It is clear that in the last three lines of this paragraph this Court ordered that the rejection of application of respondent No.3 by the Appellate Authority is set aside. It is also clear and it is not in dispute that the High Court set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority had rejected the application of respondent No.3. It is also clear and it is not in dispute that the High Court set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority had rejected the application of respondent No.3. This order having been set aside and the appeal having been sent back to the Appellate Authority it could not be doubted that the order passed in favour of respondent No, 3 by the Regional Transport Authority was revived That is the clear meaning of the order passed by this Court. From a perusal of the observation in paragraph 3 quoted above there is nothing to indicate that the Appellate Authority was bound to consider the respective merits of both the parties and there was no scope for him to consider the argument that respondent No.3 will not be in the picture as the permit bad come to an end by lapse of time and no application for renewal had been made. Apparently, to this extent respondent No.1 the State Transport Appellate Authority has committed an error apparent on the face of the record. We therefore have no hesitation in quashing this order passed by respondent No.1. 4. An attempt was made by learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 to contend that even the petitioner's application was not subsisting and he contended that the matter be decided here in this petition. Apparently, the agrument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner about the status of respondent No.3 on the date on which the appeal came up for hearing was not considered by respondent No.1; and even the argument on behalf of respondent No.3 about the maintainability of the application of petitioner on that date also has not been considered. It would therefore be proper that these contentions are considered by the Appellate Authority and we therefore send back the matter to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal. Petition allowed. Case remanded.