BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition arises out of the impugned order vide Annexure-B dated 25-2-1988 passed by the Karnataka State transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, allowing Appeal No. 242 of 1984 on its file and remitting the case to the Regional transport Authority, Kolar, for consideration afresh and disposal in accordance with law after the grantee places the materials with regard to all the intermediary places on the route in question and after the R. TA. gets a route survey conducted by the Secretary, R. T. A. in the presence of the grantee as well as the karnataka State Road Transport corporation (appellant before the Transport appellate Tribunal ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner was an applicant for grant of a fresh stage carriage permit before the R. T. A. in respect of the route Bangalore to Kolar on an interior route. The said application was notified in the Karnataka gazette and objections were invited. Thereafter, the R. T. A. considered the application in subject No. 134/82 dated 3-12-1983 and, after hearing all the objectors, granted the stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner, vide Annexure-A, which contains the resolution. Before the R. T. A. , the contention of respondent-3 which is the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation was that the route in question overlaps the notified route under the Kolar Pocket scheme. But, according to the petitioner, it was not a case of overlapping, but it was only a case of inter-sections at the terminal points of the village limits, Taluk head-quarters and district head-quarters. The contention of the petitioner was accepted and permit granted. Against this order, respondent-3 preferred Appeal No. 242 of 1984 before the transport Appellate Tribunal. After hearing the Counsels for both the parties, the transport Appellate Tribunal passed the following order:"a. NO. 242/84 is hereby allowed, the impugned resolution is set aside and the application of the grantee respondent is remitted to the RTA for consideration afresh and disposal in accordance with law and on merit after the grantee respondent places the materials with regard to all the intermediary places on the route in question and thereafter, the rta should get a route survey conducted by the Secretary, RTA in the presence of the grantee and also the appellant and then to decide the matter. The RTA is directed to dispose of this application within a period of three months after the receipt of the records by it. " ( 3 ) THE petitioner is not happy with the order passed by the Transport Appellate tribunal and she has specifically questioned the order directing the R. TA. to get a route survey conducted by the Secretary in the presence of the grantee and also respondent- 3 and then to decide the matter. In short, the grievance of the petitioner is that the transport Appellate Tribunal was not justified in remitting the matter back to the r. T. A. for the purpose of getting a route survey conducted and to pass a fresh order on the basis of the report therein. According to the petitioner, the Transport Appellate tribunal itself could have got the route survey conducted and, instead of remitting the case back to the R. TA. could have proceeded to pass orders on the basis of the route survey report. ( 4 ) A careful reading of the impugned order shows that the operative portion comprises two aspects. The first aspect is the direction to the R. T. A. for consideration of the matter afresh and for disposal on merits in accordance with law after the grantee places the materials with regard to all the intermediary places on the route in question. The second aspect is the direction issued to the R. TA. to have a route survey conducted by the Secretary, R. TA. in the presence of both the grantee and respondent-3 and then to decide the matter. ( 5 ) THE dispute appears to me to fall within a limited compass. The question for consideration is whether it is necessary for the Transport Appeuate Tribunal to remit the matter back to the R. TA. for the purpose of disposing of the application for grant of stage carriage permit afresh or to get a route survey conducted and to apply its own mind on the basis of the report after it is submitted, in order to decide the question whether or not there is overlapping of the route and whether the grant of stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner should be sustained. ( 6 ) I have carefully gone through the discussion and order passed by the Transport appellate Tribunal. ( 6 ) I have carefully gone through the discussion and order passed by the Transport appellate Tribunal. The only question that is in dispute is whether there is overlapping of the notified route or whether there are only inter-sections at the terminal points. ( 7 ) THE necessity to remit the case back to the R. T. A. for determination of this question is sought to be justified by the learned Counsel for Respondent-3 on the ground that it is only the R. TA. who should examine the entire question afresh as the original authority since a new route survey report has to be obtained from the Secretary, R. TA. in order to decide whether or not there is overlapping. The other contention of the learned Counsel for respondent-3 is that the Transport Appellate Authority should not exercise the power of the original authority. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has strongly contended that the larger interests of the travelling public would suffer if the disposal of the case on receipt of a new survey report is delayed by unnecessarily remitting the case back to the R. TA. instead of the Transport appellate Tribunal exercising its power and determining on the basis of the route survey report the question in controversy. It was further contended by the learned Counsel that the powers of the appellate authority are co-extensive with the powers of the R. T. A. and there is no prohibition imposed upon the appellate authority from considering the route survey report directly by itself instead of calling upon the R. T. A. to give a decision on the basis of the route survey report. ( 9 ) I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for respondent-3 that the Transport Appellate Tribunal should not exercise its powers in determining the question in controversy by obtaining a route survey report from the Secretary, R. T. A. It will be an unnecessary exercise and waste of time to send the matter back to the R. T. A. and to await the decision of the R. T. A. on the basis of the fresh route survey report and, lateron, exercise its power if the matter is brought up before the Transport Appellate Tribunal by way of appeal. Multiplicity of proceedings could be avoided by a simple procedure of direct disposal of the matter by the transport Appellate Tribunal itself in the absence of any statutory bar. The learned counsel for respondent-3 was unable to explain as to how prejudice would be caused to the legitimate rights of the K. S. R. T. C. if the transport Appellate Tribunal were to procure a route survey report from the secretary, R. T. A, and, on the basis of such a report, disposes of the matter in issue which is whether or not there is overlapping on the notified route as alleged by respondent-3. What was pointed out to me was only a technical and superfluous ritual and not violation of any statutory provision. It was not the grievance of the learned Counsel for respondent-3 that the statute prohibits the exercise of power directly by the appellate authority in a situation like this. I would hasten to add that the sooner the matter is disposed of, the better it is in the interest of the travelling public, because the ultimate beneficiary of the services is the Community of commuters. Procedural tangles should not come in the way of fulfilment of the purpose of a welfare legislation like the Motor Vehicles Act which is intended to cater to the pressing needs of the travelling public. ( 10 ) IT is also a matter of record that there is no controversy about the existence of need and also in respect of the assignment of timings. As observed earlier, what is in dispute is only whether there is overlapping of the notified route. For a determination of this question, all that has to be done is that there should be a joint inspection of the interested parties so that a fair and impartial decision emerges in the course of the route survey at the instance of the Secretary, r. T. A. and, on the basis of that, the question would get itself resolved as to whether or not there is overlapping. I do not think that more useful purpose would be served by remitting the case back to the R. T. A. and I opine that the purpose would be served better if the Transport Appellate Tribunal itself decides the question after getting the route survey conducted by the Secretary, R. T. A. as directed by the Transport Appellate tribunal. I do not think that more useful purpose would be served by remitting the case back to the R. T. A. and I opine that the purpose would be served better if the Transport Appellate Tribunal itself decides the question after getting the route survey conducted by the Secretary, R. T. A. as directed by the Transport Appellate tribunal. ( 11 ) MY attention also was drawn to some of the decisions of this Court wherein it has been consistently laid-down that matters of this nature should not unnecessarily be remanded to the R. T. A. The Transport Appellate Tribunal enjoys a jurisdiction which is co-extensive with that of the R. T. A. and that even in a case where the material on record is found to be insufficient, the Transport appellate Tribunal could collect or call for further material. The rulings in this behalf are to be found in Writ Petition Nos. 11275 and 11276 of 1977, disposed of on 24-2-1981, Writ appeal Nos. 1190 and 1712 of 1985, disposed of on 14-2-1986 and Writ Petition No. 17655 of 1987, disposed of on 18-1-1988. ( 12 ) IT is difficult to accept the view that the power, of fact collection is given only to the R. T. A. and not to the Transport Appellate Tribunal for the purpose of disposal of the question in issue. I am convinced that, in the circumstances and on the facts of this case, the Transport Appellate Tribunal was not justified in remitting the case back to the r. T. A. for the purpose of getting a route survey conducted and then to dispose of the application for grant of stage carriage permit afresh on the basis of such a report and in accordance with law. On the other hand, the proper course for the Transport Appellate tribunal was to direct the Secretary, R. T. A. to conduct the route survey in the presence of the interested parties and to submit the same to the Transport Appellate Tribunal for its consideration so that the Transport appellate Tribunal could decide whether or not there is overlapping of the notified route. ( 13 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, I allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 25-2-1988 passed by the Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal No. 242 of 1984 vide Annexure-B. The transport Appellate Tribunal is directed to obtain the route survey report for its consideration and dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law within ten weeks from the date of receipt of this order. --- *** --- .