Short Note : The material facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows: The Regional Transport Authority, Indore, had, by a notification dated 7th January 1972, invited applications for grant of a stage carriage permit on Khachrod-Barnagar via Kamthana-Pechlana, Runija route. The petitioner as well as respondent No.3, M/s. Suryapal Shriyanskumar Jain were amongst the applicants who had submitted applications for grant of the aforesaid permit. Those applications were duly published under the provisions of section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the Act, and representations were invited. The Regional Transport Authority notified 25th August 1972 as the date of hearing when the applications and the representations were to be considered. Subsequently, by a fresh notice, hearing was adjourned to 27th September 1972. On that date, respondent No. 3 was absent. The Regional Transport Authority, therefore, inferred that respondent No.3 was not interested in prosecuting his application and granted the permit for the aforesaid route to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. By its impugned order, the Tribunal aside the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority and directed the Regional Transport Authority to grant the permit in question to respondent No.3. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has preferred this petition. Held : The Tribunal held that the Regional Transport Authority was bound to consider the application of respondent No.3 on merits and as it had failed to do so, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the merits of the petitioner and respondent No.3 as disclosed from the record of the Regional Transport Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that the Appellate Tribunal should have remanded the case to the Regional Transport Authority instead of deciding the matter finally. There is no substance in this contention. In this connection, we may usefully refer to the observations of Bishambhar Dayal, C.J. in Surendra v. S.T.A. Authority, 1970 JLJ 298 (FB). 2. In the instant case, as the Regional Transport Authority failed to consider the merits of respondent No. 3 before granting a permit to the petitioner, the Appellate Tribunal rightly proceeded to consider the merits and demerits of the rival applicants. 3. The Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to quash the order of the Regional Transport Authority. 2. In the instant case, as the Regional Transport Authority failed to consider the merits of respondent No. 3 before granting a permit to the petitioner, the Appellate Tribunal rightly proceeded to consider the merits and demerits of the rival applicants. 3. The Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to quash the order of the Regional Transport Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner faded to satisfy us that in passing the impugned order the Appellate Tribunal has contravened any provision of law or has committed any error apparent on the face of the record. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is, therefore, misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 1970 JLJ 298 (FB) relied on. Petition dismissed.