ORDER 1. This appeal is dismissed on the short ground that the High Court was correct in rejecting the appellants appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 29-4-1997 when the appellant had not challenged the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 24-2-1996. 2. The respondent had set up a unit in respect of which it applied for grant of an eligibility certificate under Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 9 1948 (referred to as "the Act"). The application was rejected for the first time on 1-5-1993 by the Divisional Level Committee (referred to as "the DLC"). The matter ultimately came up by way of appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal by an order dated 25-2-1995 set aside the first rejection on the ground that reasonable opportunity of being heard had not been given to the respondent. Liberty was granted to the DLC to reconsider h the respondents application for grant of eligibility certificate. 3. The OLC for a second time rejected the application for grant by an order dated 8-9-1995. Three reasons were given in support of that rejection. All three reasons are based upon the Explanation to Section 4-A of the Act. It is unnecessary for us to set out the reasons in detail because all three grounds were rejected by the Tribunal in the appeal preferred by the respondent by its order dated 24-2-1996. The Tribunal negatived each of the three grounds specifically and remanded the matter back to the OLC to consider whether apart from those three specific grounds which were negatived there was any other ground available under the Explanation to Section 4-A of the Act with which the respondent had not complied and which would justify the OLC rejecting the application. No appeal was preferred from this order of the Tribunal. It must therefore be taken that the appellant accepted the Tribunals decision insofar as it held that three grounds of rejection given by the OLC in its rejection order dated 8-9-1995 were unsustainable and in fact were bad in law. 4. The OLC however passed a third order of rejection on the same grounds which had been negatived earlier by the Tribunals order dated 24-21996. This compelled the respondent to file yet another appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. 4. The OLC however passed a third order of rejection on the same grounds which had been negatived earlier by the Tribunals order dated 24-21996. This compelled the respondent to file yet another appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Sales Tax Tribunal allowed the appeal, as it should have, because the grounds taken for rejection by the OLC were those which had earlier been negatived by the Tribunal. 5. The appellants appeal to the High Court was correctly dismissed. The grounds agitated before the High Court as indeed before this Court are those which had been taken in the second order of rejection dated 8-9-1995 which had been held unsustainable by the Tribunal in its order dated 24-2-1996 and from which order the appellant has not preferred any appeal. It is not open to the appellant to reopen the issue having accepted the same in respect of very same parties. 6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.