ORDER 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2001 of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 1755 of 2001 of this Court the petitioner-appellant has filed this letters patent appeal praying for renewal of Inter-State permit for the route of Itarsi to Nagpur under reciprocal agreement. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was having original permit Nos. 11/1951 and 143/1964 for the route in question. On 30.12.1992 both the permits were amalgamated into a single permit No. 11/1951. There was an Inter-State agreement between the State of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra State in respect of route in question. The original Inter-State agreement expected on 31st March, 1967 which was revised from time to time and was replaced by Inter-State agreement published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 19th July, 1974. After coming into force of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the permit of the petitioner was last renewed on 14th November, 1995 for a period of five years i.e. upto 30th November, 2000. 3. Approved Scheme No. 82 came into force on 31st August, 1979 and prohibited State Transport Services otherwise than under the Scheme. The petitioner applied for fresh grant as well as for renewal of his permit on 24.8.2000. The STA by order dated 7.6.2001 refused to grant permit on the ground that it is covered by the Scheme as the operation of route is more than the permissible limit under the Scheme. On appeal preferred before the STAT the order of STA was confirmed. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order also upheld the order of the Appellate Tribunal against which the present appeal has been preferred. 4. The contention of the learned Counsel of appellant is that the orders of the learned STA, STAT as well as of the learned Single Judge passed in writ petition are vitiated under the law because they failed to consider the provisions of the Scheme No. 82 under which the permit of the petitioner-appellant was saved. However, the learned Counsel of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on the other hand, has supported the order of the learned Single Judge and raised a preliminary objection that no letters patent appeal lies against the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. However, the learned Counsel of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on the other hand, has supported the order of the learned Single Judge and raised a preliminary objection that no letters patent appeal lies against the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. Insofar as the non-maintainability of the letters patent appeal is concerned the learned Counsel of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation has heavily relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Rahim Khan v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. reported in 1999 (1) JLJ 173 , against which a special leave appeal was also refused by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Dwarika Prasad Tiwari etc. v. The M.P. State Road Transport Corporation etc., being Civil Appeal No. 636/1998 by judgment dated 13.9.2001. In this case itself Hon'ble Apex Court has observed: This Court in Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankarprasad 1999 (6) SC 275, has explained the legal position in this respect after adverting to the decisions of this Court in Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai Ratnagiri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dinkar Kashinath Watve and Ors. 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 9, and Sushilabai Laxminaraiyan Mudliyar and Ors. v. Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shaha and Ors. Thereafter, it is no longer necessary for us to set out the law on the matter nor is it necessary to remand the case after setting aside the order made in the writ appeal to examine the case in the light of the decision of this Court. 6. In the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and Anr. v. Shiv Shankar and Anr. reported in 2000 (1) MPLJ 156, after taking into consideration the case of Abdul Rahim Khan (supra), it was observed that in such a circumstance, the observations made in Abdul Rahim Khan's case (supra), sought to be relied upon in support of the submission in regard to the non-maintainability of the present appeals, cannot come to the rescue of the respondent as the aforesaid observations in the facts and circumstances as not filed hereinabove could not be taken to have the force of a binding precedent. This Court is bound to follow the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court which clearly stand attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. This Court is bound to follow the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court which clearly stand attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Agrawal and Ors. v. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. (2001)IILLJ1239SC , again reiterated its earlier decision in the case of Lokmat News Papers (P) Ltd. (supra), and made it clear that so far as the law on the matter is concerned, as to whether an appeal would lie against an order made in writ petition before the High Court challenging an order of the Labour Court, it in its decision in Lokmat News Papers (P) Ltd. v. Shankarprasad (supra), had stated that if a Single Judge exercises jurisdiction under Article 226, letters patent appeal would be maintainable, but if the jurisdiction is exercised under Article 227 it will not be maintainable. But with an explanation that if the Single Judge of the High Court in considering the petition under Article 226 or Article 227 does not state under which provision he has decided the matter and where the facts justify filing of petition both under Article 226 and Article 227 and a petition so filed is dismissed by the Single Judge, on merits, the matter may be considered in its proper, perspective in an appeal. 8. Now in the present case also the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has not clarified whether the writ petition is dismissed by invoking powers under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution and the order of dismissal has been passed on merits. Therefore, in our considered opinion this letters patent appeal is maintainable. 9. Now coming to the merits of the ease, the learned Single Judge has held that right of renewal of permit had accrued to the petitioner but finally concluded that the discretion with the Authority to consider other application and refuse renewal called for no interference considering the reasons assigned by the authority. The State Transport Authority had refused renewal in the light of prohibition under Scheme No. 82 for grant of permits for routes which cover more than 25 kilometres on the routes mentioned in its Schedule. The State Transport Authority had refused renewal in the light of prohibition under Scheme No. 82 for grant of permits for routes which cover more than 25 kilometres on the routes mentioned in its Schedule. However, Clause (3) of the Scheme No. 82 provides that the vehicles of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra States nominee plying under the terms of reciprocal transport agreement between Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra States covering routes of the routes mentioned above subject to and governed by reciprocal agreement between the States of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra shall be allowed to ply as before. Permit granted to the petitioner renewal of which is sought by him was as per certificate of the Secretary, STA, which has been filed as part of Annexure P-12, and mentions that permit Nos. 11/51 and 143/64 on Itarsi to Nagpur route were granted under reciprocal agreement of the States of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra in 1964 and were time to time renewed and counter-signed under the mutual agreement. 10. Probably, it appears, that the concerning record on the basis of which the certificate said to have been issued by the Secretary of the STA has not been perused or considered by the STA while refusing the application. Learned Single Judge has also probably overlooked this fact that the STA has rejected the application without considering the impact of Clause (3) of the Scheme No. 82. The impugned order, therefore, in our considered opinion is vitiated in law. 11. In the circumstances, in our opinion, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge as well as the orders of the STA and STAT are hereby set aside and it is directed that STA shall now reconsider and decide the application of the petitioner-appellant in the light of the observations made hereinabove within a period of probably two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.