The appellate authority should dispose of all matters available on record instead of remanding the case to the primary authority, if sufficient evidence or material is available to enable it to take a decision.

JUDGMENT :

A. Pasayat, J.

1.These two writ applications are directed against a common judgment passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Orissa, Cuttack (in short, the 'Tribunal') directing fresh consideration of applications seeking grant of temporary permits by the Chairman, State Transport Authority, Orissa, Cuttack (in short, 'STA').

2. A brief reference to the factual aspect would suffice. Each of the petitioners filed application for temporary permit on the inter-Stats route from Kakatpur to Calcutta in the year 1988. An agreement was entered into between the State of Orissa and State of West Bengal and on the basis of such agreement, two vehicles from each State were to be plied on the aforesaid route. As applications filed for temporary permits are not disposed of for a long time, this Court was moved. A direction was given to dispose of the application. it is to be noted that there were five applications. Accordingly, STA disposed of applications for grant of temporary permits by order dated 29/30-7-1996 and the applications were rejected.

3. Appeals were filed under Secton 89 of the Motor Vehicles . Act, 1983 (in short, the 'Act') before the Tribunal. Primary stand taken in the appeals filed by petitioners was that previously permits granted to the operators on the aforesaid route on the condition that they shall be valid subject to the counter-signature by the concerned Transport authorities of West Bengal. In the agreement itself it was mentioned that on the aforesaid route, two vehicles from each State has to be plied and therefore, rejection of the applications for grant of temporary permits was untenable. The Tribunal noticed that concurrence was not received from the Transport authority of West Bengal. STA had issued temporary permits frequently in the past on the basis of agreement entered in the year, 1988.It rejected applications primarily on the ground that despite repeated requests. concurrence of the Transport authority of West Bangal was not received. Tribunal noticed that there was an agreement and permits were issued previously. In the aforesaid background, Tribunal came to conclude that applications should not have been rejected marely on the ground that concurrence was not received from the Transport authority of West Bengal. Conditional permits as were issued earlier on the aforesaid route could have been granted. Contention of learned counsel appearing for the STA before the Tribunal that agreement having not reached its finality, no permit can be issued on its basis did not find favour with the Tribunal, in view of earlier issuance of permits. After having so concluded, the. Tribunal held that it could have issued permits to the applicants before it. but it did not think appropriate to do so as tiers were other applications. Accordingly matter was remitted to the STA for fresh consideration.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that approach of the Tribunal is erroneous. As the persons whose applications were rejected did not prefer any appeal. Tribunal ought to have ignored their cases and taken a decision on the dispute which was before it. Mr L. Mohapatra and Mr. S.S. Rao, learned counsel for opp. party Nos 5 to 7 submitted that the course adopted by the Tribunal cannot be called to be erroneous and in any event it would be open to the petitioners to place their stand on merits before the STA afresh. Learned counsel for Transport Department also made similar submission.

5. A person whose application has been rejected and no challenge was made to the rejection is not entitled to derive any benefit in appeal preferred by another applicant. Where concerned Transport Authority rejects application of any applicant before it, that bring on end to the application. Such a person has a right under toe statute to prefer an appeal against rejection of his application. If there is any challenge to the order of rejection and remedy of appeal is availed appellate authority can consider it and in an