JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - Both the writ applications in which the same order has been challenged have been heard together and will be governed by this common order. 2. In pursuance of a notice issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Sundargarh (opposite party No. 2), inviting applications from intending operators for the grant of a stage carriage permit for the route Dalki to Bisra via Rourkela, the Petitioner and seven other applicants including the opposite party No. 1 in O.J.C. No. 158 of 1979 and the opposite party No. 1 in O.J.C. No. 172 of 1979 made applications which were processed in accordance with the provisions made in Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The opposite party No. 2 heard all the applicants, considered their applications in the light of two principles to judge the comparative merits, viz., (i) preference to be given to unemployed Graduates arid, (ii) preference to be given to an applicant having not more than one bus and found that there was none belonging to the first category and taking note of the second category and on a consideration of the comparative merits, granted the permit in favour of the Petitioner which was issued and the Petitioner started operating the service on and from January 1, 1978. The opposite party No. 1 in O.J.C. No. 158 of 1979 preferred M.V. Appeal No. 18 of 1977 and the opposite party No. 1 in O.J.C. No. 172 of 1979 preferred M.V. Appeal No. 21 of 1977 against the same decision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (opposite party No. 3) who set aside the impugned decision on various grounds and ultimately remanded the matter to the opposite party No. 2 for re-consideration of all the applications and then decide the matter in accordance with law with a further direction that if none of the applicants was found suitable, fresh applications would be invited. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in both the cases and the learned Counsel representing the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 in O.J.C. No. 158 of 1979 has not entered appearance in spite of service of notice on him and none has appeared for-the opposite party No. 1 in O.J.C. No. 172 of 1979 at the hearing. 4. The opposite party No. 1 in O.J.C. No. 158 of 1979 has not entered appearance in spite of service of notice on him and none has appeared for-the opposite party No. 1 in O.J.C. No. 172 of 1979 at the hearing. 4. The only question raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to direct re-consideration of applications even of those persons who had not preferred appeals against the impugned decision taken by the opposite party No. 2. 5. Besides the Petitioner and the opposite party No. 1 in each of the two writ applications, five other persons, namely, Rameswar Sahu, Ram Chandra Sahu, Sanjivanlal Jaisawal. Moinuddin Ahmed and Albinas Xess, had made applications for the same route permit. After a decision was taken by the opposite party No. 2 for grant of permit in favour of the Petitioner, the opposite party No. 1 in each of the two writ applications had preferred an appeal, as indicated above, while the other applicants had not, Could the Tribunal direct re-consideration of the applications also of the persons who had not preferred any appeal against the decision of the opposite party No. 2 is the question for consideration. 6. In support of his contentions in this regard, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on two decisions of this Court. One has been reported in Lokanath Prasad Das Vs. Bijoya Kumar Bhuyan and Others, and the other is the decision taken by this Court in Baman Chandra Sahu etc. v. Presiding Officer, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Orissa and Ors. C. Nos. 901 and 993 of 1979 - D/16-3-82. As has been held therein, no direction can be given while remanding the matter for re-consideration of the applications of those person who had not preferred appeals against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority rejecting their applications which pad become final. This case is directly covered by principle laid down in the aforesaid two decisions of this Court. The learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has fairly conceded that the direction of the Tribunal for re-consideration be the opposite party No. 2 of the applications of those persons who had not preferred any appeal against the decision of the opposite party No. 2 cannot be sustained. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has fairly conceded that the direction of the Tribunal for re-consideration be the opposite party No. 2 of the applications of those persons who had not preferred any appeal against the decision of the opposite party No. 2 cannot be sustained. 7. The writ applications are accordingly allowed and the direction in the impugned appellate order passed by the Tribunal for re-consideration of the cases of the applicants who had not preferred any appeal is quashed. There would be no order as to costs. H.L. Agrawal, C.J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Allowed