ASHOK BHAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall dispose of Writ Appeal Nos. 5188 to 5191 of 1998 arising from the decision of the Single Judge in W. P. Nos. 13159 to 13160 of 1998, 13172 and 13173 of 1998 and W. P. Nos. 6965 to 6968 of 1999 and 8586 of 1999 as the point involved in all these cases is the same. The fate of writ petitions would depend upon the order passed in w. A. Nos. 5188 to 5191 of 1998. ( 2 ) INITIALLY, we would be referring to the facts in the writ appeals which are as under: the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short the Corporation') filed the W. P. Nos. 13159 of 1998, 13160 of 1998, 13172 of 1998 and 13173 of 1998 challenging the order of the State Transport authority (for short 'the Authority") granting stage carriage permit on the route Pantanahalli to Bangalore which overlapped the nationalised routes, the extent of which varied from case to case. The learned Single judge non-suited the Corporation on the ground of alternative remedy. Relying upon the judgment of the Single Judge in S. Ravichandra v Debt recovery Tribunal, Bangalore and Another , it was observed that the appellant should not have skipped over the remedy of filing the revision appeal provided under the statute. While doing so, the learned Single judge in paras 3 and 4 of his order made certain observations on merits of the dispute as well. The Corporation has come up in appeal challenging the order of the Single Judge inter alia contending that as the appellants were non-suited on the ground of alternative remedy, the only proper course available to the Single Judge was to ask the appellants to avail of the alternative remedy provided under the statute. That the Single Judge should not have made any observation on merits. ( 3 ) WE find substance in this submission. The learned Single Judge should not have touched upon the merits of the dispute as he had nonsuited the appellants on the ground of alternative remedy. In fact, the single Judge was not required to express any opinion on the merits of the case and it should have been left open to the appellant to pursue its remedy before the alternative forum provided under the statute. In fact, the single Judge was not required to express any opinion on the merits of the case and it should have been left open to the appellant to pursue its remedy before the alternative forum provided under the statute. The supreme Court of India in the case of Tin Plate Company of India limited v State of Bihar and Others, in similar situation observed as under:"learned Counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the High court has committed a grave error in making various observations touching upon the merits of the case while dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy and thereby prejudicing the case of the appellant to be taken up before the Appellate authority who was bound to decide the case in terms of the obser vations made by the High Court. The argument is well-substantiated. It is no doubt true that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a person, he should be required to pursue t hat remedy and not to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and where such a remedy is available, it would be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the present case, admittedly, the appellant had an alternative and equally efficacious remedy by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order of assessment and in view of such a remedy being available to the appellant, the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the appellant has an alternative remedy available under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959. However, we do not subscribe to the view of the High Court when it made a number of observations touching upon the merits of the case while dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. If the writ petition under Article 226 is to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, the High Court is not required to express any opinion on the merits of the case which is to be pursued before an alternative forum. If the writ petition under Article 226 is to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, the High Court is not required to express any opinion on the merits of the case which is to be pursued before an alternative forum. It is true that in the present case, the appellant's counsel in his effort to get over the objection of existence of an alternative remedy, addressed the Court on the merits of the case and thereby invited the observations on the merits of the case by the High Court. But in such a situation, if the High Court is to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, it would be a sound exercise of jurisdiction to refrain itself from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case which ultimately is to be taken up by a person before an alternative forum". ( 4 ) RESPECTFULLY following the observations made by the Supreme court in the case referred to above, we accept the appeals partly and set aside the observations made by the Single Judge in paras 3 and 4 relating to the merits of the dispute. The appellant shall stand non-suited on the ground of alternative remedy alone. Liberty is reserved with the appellants to file the revision petition provided under the statute before the State Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal' ). In case the revision is filed within two weeks from today, the same be entertained without objection to limitation. The Tribunal shall proceed to decide the dispute between the parties on merits without influencing itself by any of the observations made by the Single Judge in the impugned order. ORDER IN W. P. Nos. 6965 to 6968 of 1999 and 8586 of 1999 some of the operators who were similarly affected as the Corporation filed revision petitions before the Tribunal. Tribunal upheld the order of the authority relying upon the observations made by the Single Judge in paras 3 and 4 of the order in W. P. Nos. 13159 to 13169 of 1998 and 13172 and 13173 of 1998 which is the subject-matter of appeals in W. A. Nos. 5188 to 5191 of 1998. Tribunal refused to go into the merits because of the observations made by the Single Judge in his order. 13159 to 13169 of 1998 and 13172 and 13173 of 1998 which is the subject-matter of appeals in W. A. Nos. 5188 to 5191 of 1998. Tribunal refused to go into the merits because of the observations made by the Single Judge in his order. It was held:"for what is discussed above, it can plainly be perceived that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court touches upon the merits of the case and that this Tribunal has to take cognizance of binding nature of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court. The fact that the petitioner was not a party in the said writ petitions does not alter the position. When the decision of the Hon'ble High court relates to the same permits which have been impugned in these revisions, it cannot be gainsaid that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court relating to each permits binds this tribunal not matter the petitioner was not a party in the said writ petitions disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court. At the risk of the petition, / may again emphasize that in the absence of clear direction as reflected in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court enabling this Tribunal to decide the validity of the impugned permits on merits uninfluenced by the dismissal of the writ petitions impugned the validity of the permits in question. I feel declined to examine the revision petitions on merits". 2. As we have set aside the paras 3 and 4 of the order in W. P. No. 13159 of 1998 and others, these writ petitions are accepted. The order of the revisional authority is set aside. The cases are remitted to the revisional authority to decide the same afresh in accordance with law without influencing itself by any of the observations made by the Single judge which have been set aside by us in the appeals referred to above. In all these cases, parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the revisional authority on 17-4-2000. On the said date, the tribunal shall record the presence of the parties and proceed to decide the appeals in accordance with law. As the matter has been pending in various Courts for the last several years, we direct the Revisional Authority to decide the appeals already filed or which may be filed by the Corporation within a period of three months starting from 17-4-2000. As the matter has been pending in various Courts for the last several years, we direct the Revisional Authority to decide the appeals already filed or which may be filed by the Corporation within a period of three months starting from 17-4-2000. --- *** --- .