Judgment :- K.L. Manjunath. J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order passed in W.P. No. 15748/2005 dated 8th March 2007 these appeals are preferred by the appellants. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. The facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder : The appellants are operating a Stage Carriage. They made an application for grant of variation, curtailing certain extant of route and to operate the Stage Carriage on the variation route. The Karnataka State Transport Authority granted variation by curtailing the route by its Resolution dated 30th March 1998. The order of variations was questioned by the respondent - Corporation by filing appeal before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 574 to 581 of 2005. These appeals came to be allowed on 26th May 2005 on the ground that no variation can be granted to a Stage Carriage permit on a overlapping area of the notified route. This order was questioned by the appellants before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in part and remanded the matter to the Karnataka State Transport Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Therefore, these appeals are preferred. 4. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in remanding the matter to the State Transport Authority. According to him, the matter was required to reconsider by the State Transport Appellate Authority since the variation granted to the appellants by the State Transport Authority was set aside by the Tribunal without considering the arguments advanced by the appellants. He further contends that though there was a delay of 6 years, the delay has not been condoned by the State Transport Authority. Without condonation of delay the appeals could not have been entertained. 5. Per contra, Mr. Nagaraj, learned Counsel for the Corporation contends that without condonation, the appeal could not have been disposed of by the STA and he further submits that when the learned Single Judge has remanded the matter to the Transport Authority, which can grant variation the appellants are no way prejudiced and therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss these appeals. 6. Nagaraj, learned Counsel for the Corporation contends that without condonation, the appeal could not have been disposed of by the STA and he further submits that when the learned Single Judge has remanded the matter to the Transport Authority, which can grant variation the appellants are no way prejudiced and therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss these appeals. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only question to be considered by us in these appeals is : "Whether the matter was required to be remanded to the STA or to STAT as ordered by the learned Single Judge" ? 7. Admittedly, the appellants are running a Stage Carriage had applied for variation by curtailing the route. The said order was passed by the STA on 30th March 1998. If the respondents - Corporations have filed an appeal in 2005 questioning the grant of variation passed in 1998 without there being an application to condone the delay the appeal could not have been entertained. But unfortunately, on perusal of the order of the STA we are unable to make out whether there an application was filed to condone the delay. Such an application has been filed where the delay of 7 years was condoned by the STA. Therefore, we are of the view that if really there is no order passed to condone the delay by the State Appellate Tribunal, it is for the Tribunal to consider the said issue as a Preliminary Issue and then to hear all the appeals filed by the appellants and consider the order passed by the STA on merits and in accordance with law. 8. On perusal of the order of the STAT, it is clear that none of the grounds urged by the appellants are considered by it. If the Tribunal has allowed the appeals without considering grounds urged by the appellants, in all fairness, the learned Single Judge was required to remand the matter to the STAT and not to the STA. The question of remanding the matter would arise only if the Tribunal was of the opinion that the order granting variation of route by the STA is contrary to any provision of law. 9. The question of remanding the matter would arise only if the Tribunal was of the opinion that the order granting variation of route by the STA is contrary to any provision of law. 9. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge has to be modified and the matter requires to be reconsidered by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal afresh in accordance with law. While deciding the appeals, the Tribunal shall look into whether there is any order to condone the delay in filing the appeals and if such an order is there, to decide the appeals on merits and if no order is passed to condone the delay it is for the STAT to consider the question of delay at the first instance and then to take up the matter on merits and in accordance with law. 10. With the above observations, these writ appeals are disposed of.