JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J - This writ petition is for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to reconsider the matter giving opportunity of hearing to the parties confining the parties before the Tribunal in M.V. Appeal No.22 of 2013. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was operating his vehicles bearing Nos.OR-05AJ-2274 and OR-05AK-2174 on the route Cuttack to Athamalik and back on the strength of successive temporary permits granted by the opposite parties w.e.f. 22.5.2010. He was refused for grant of further temporary permit by an order passed by the Chairman, State Transport Authority, Odisha dated 12.03.2012 and notified the route in the newspaper. The said order was assailed by the petitioner in M.V. Appeal No.9 of 2012 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Odisha, Cuttack which was disposed of vide order dated 7.9.2012 whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Original Authority has been quashed and directing the opposite parties to consider the application of the petitioner. Subsequently, the aforesaid matter was carried before this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.17932 of 2012 and this Court has directed the opposite parties to consider the applications made pursuant to the advertisement keeping in view the Office Order dated 8205 dated 28.05.2011. The State Transport Authority in its 270th meeting held on 15.11.2012 considered the applications received pursuant to the advertisement and decided to grant permanent permit in favour of OSRTC, one of the applicant for the route. Consequent upon grant of permit in favour of the OSRTC, other applications were rejected. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order dated 15.11.2012 passed by the State Transport Authority, has approached before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Odisha, Cuttack in M.V. Appeal No.22 of 2013, but during pendency of the said appeal, the permit granted in favour of OSRTC was surrendered and thereafter abandoned the route, ultimately the Tribunal in its judgment dated 7.4.2018 allowed the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the decision of the State Transport Authority, Odisha for reconsideration after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved with the part of the order whereby and whereunder the Tribunal, while remitting the matter, has made an observation that the other applicants who had applied for permanent permit since have not been made parties by the appellant except respondent no.3, as such, directed the State Transport Authority to decide the matter afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties. According to the petitioner, the observation made by the Appellate Tribunal for impleadment of the other parties, but they have made their applications for getting permanent permit along with the petitioner and the OSRTC since has accepted the order of rejection dated 15.11.2012 and as such, they cannot be said to be necessary parties, since they have abandoned their claim by accepting the order passed by the State Transport Authority and as such, direction to that effect passed by the Appellate Tribunal is not proper. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that on remand, it is not proper for the Appellate Authority to ask for impleadment of parties for providing an opportunity of being heard. Hence, this writ petition has been filed for quashing that part of the observation/direction passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Odisha, Cuttack. 3. Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned counsel has put his appearance to represent the opposite parties and argued the case at length and while arguing, he submits that there is no infirmity in the observation made by the Appellate Tribunal to the effect that to provide an opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties by asking the State Transport Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. He submits that the State Transport Authority has passed an order way back on 15.11.2012 while the appeal has been decided on 7.4.2018 in between there is gap of about more than 5? years and as such, providing opportunity to the other parties to get permanent permit cannot be said to be unjustified for the reason that due to the time gap, the authority might be in a situation to assess the condition of the vehicle and since the petitioner is the sole contested for the aforesaid route, if the other parties will not be allowed to be heard, the authority would have got no option to choose the best vehicle to provide the better facilities and more convenient vehicle to the people. He submits that so far as the legal position is concerned regarding the principle of impleading a party on remand, there is no dispute upon it, but in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, since the question of providing permanent permit is concerned and before granting it, the authority has to see that the people may get better bus with the better amenities and with all efforts which cannot be available to them, if there will be no other contestants and keeping the fact of the interest of the people at large, the Tribunal has passed an order and as such, there is no unreasonableness in the aforesaid finding. He further submits that before the State Transport Authority, the other parties were there, but after allotment of the permanent permit in favour of the OSRTC they have not chosen to contest it, it does not mean that they will be said to be not necessary parties merely because they have not challenged the aforesaid order and the petitioner will be said to be necessary party since he is contesting the case. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, it is admitted position that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicles bearing Nos.OR-05AJ-2274 and OR-05AK-2174 who was plying vehicle on the route Cuttack to Athamalik on the basis of temporary permit, but the temporary permit was discontinued. In consequence thereof, he has made an application for getting permanent permit and accordingly submitted application in accordance with the statutory provision apart from the petitioner, others have also participated including the OSRTC. It is evident from the order passed by the State Transport Authority that before it, there were 12 vehicles having 11 contestants. Petitioner has applied for two vehicles to get the permanent permit along with the District Transport Manager of the OSRTC, Cuttack owner of vehicle No.OR-05-AF-3577. The State Transport Authority while disposing the application vide order dated 23.11.2012 has granted permanent permit in favour of the OSRTC being the State Transport Undertaking and thereby the preference has been given to it. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order before the Appellate Tribunal. The other participants who details have been referred at page-9 of the brief from Serial No.(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii) and (x) has not chosen to assail the aforesaid order. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order before the Appellate Tribunal. The other participants who details have been referred at page-9 of the brief from Serial No.(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii) and (x) has not chosen to assail the aforesaid order. When the matter was pending before the State Administrative Tribunal, the permanent permit has been surrendered since it has expired after completion of 5 years by the OSRTC and thereby the route in question is fallen vacant. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Odisha, Cuttack, while disposing of the appeal in that circumstances, has remitted the matter back before the State Transport Authority by making an observation that in the appeal, the other applicants those who had applied for permanent permit have not been made parties by the appellant except the respondent no.3, OSRTC and keeping the fact into consideration, the matter has been referred before the State Transport Authority for its fresh consideration after providing opportunities of hearing to the parties. The petitioner, being aggrieved with that part of the observation of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Odisha, Cuttack to the effect of impleadment of other participants who have applied for getting permanent permit before the State Transport Authority and to provide an opportunity of hearing to them, is before this Court for quashing it. 5. This Court, after appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and after going across the pleading made therein, has found that the application for getting permanent permit was made which was the subject matter of application before the State Transport Authority and after the aforesaid order having passed on 15.11.2012, the matter was lying pending before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Odisha, Cuttack till its disposal vide judgment dated 7.4.2018, while it was pending, due to the expiry of the period of 5 years, the OSRTC has surrendered the permanent permit in lieu thereof, the route is fallen vacant. It is further evident that the others were applicants before the State Transport Authority, Odisha and after the permanent permit having been granted in favour of the OSRTC save and except the petitioner, none has challenged the decision of the State Transport Authority. It is further evident that the others were applicants before the State Transport Authority, Odisha and after the permanent permit having been granted in favour of the OSRTC save and except the petitioner, none has challenged the decision of the State Transport Authority. The contention of the petitioner that the others who were the applicants before the State Transport Authority cannot be said to be necessary parties merely for the reason that they have accepted the order and not challenging before the Tribunal save and except the petitioner, but this argument is not accepted for the reason that merely on account of acceptance of the order by a party, the status of necessary party cannot be vanished. If anyone is a party before any of the authority, he will remain a party, merely on account of the fact that the order has been accepted, the status of necessary party will not be changed that too in the nature of dispute herein which pertains to plying the vehicle on the basis of permanent permit and before granting permanent permit, the sanctioning authority is to see so many things like that of quality of bus, model of the vehicle etc. so that the maximum be provided to the people to their interest and convenience. Further for the reason that if there is a long time gap, the authority will get an opportunity to again assess the new vehicle, if purchased by the same party in between the intervening period in order to assess the quality of the vehicle etc. If the other parties will not be allowed to be heard for the purpose of granting permanent permit, will have to consider the claim of the petitioner in absence of any option lying with the sanctioning authority, since before the appeal, it is in between the petitioner and the OSRTC, now the OSRTC has already surrendered the permanent permit, there will be no other contestant to get the permanent permit for the aforesaid route and the normal consequence would be that the State Transport Authority will have no option to choose the best one in absence of the option and it will have to be provided in favour of the petitioner only. 6. 6. This Court, after going through the judgment dated 07.04.2018 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Odisha, Cuttack in M.V. Appeal No.22 of 2013, is of the view that the Appellate Authority has not committed any error in observing therein that the other parties who have made their applications before the State Transport Authority be also heard so that they may also get an opportunity, since it is the consideration for its inception by way of fresh consideration as also it will be beneficial for the public at large to provide the best by choosing the best vehicle in the aforesaid route and also the others will get a chance for consideration. 7. This Court, keeping all these facts into consideration, is of the view that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Odisha, Cuttack while making such observation has not committed any error. Hence, declines to interfere with the aforesaid part of the order. In view thereof, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed