( 1 ) IN this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, dated 27-2-1973 (Petitioner's Annexure C ). By the said order, the petitioner's application for restoration of the appeal to file was rejected by the State transport Appellate Tribunal on the ground that it was barred by limitation. At this stage, we might note that the petitioner has not made any prayer for quashing the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, dated 4-4-1972, dismissing the petitioner's appeal in default.

( 2 ) THE petitioner's husband, Nazir Ahmad, a bus operator, and other bus operators, namely, respondents 3 to 7, had applied for a stage carriage permit for the Sanjeet-Mandsaur route. The Regional Transport Authority, by order dated 12-12-1970, granted a permit in favour of the third respondent, namely, motilal Phulchand. Against that order of the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. A notice of the hearing on 4-4-1972 was issued to the petitioner, but in spite of that notice, she remained absent. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal in default by an order of that date. Thereafter, the petitioner on 19-121972 filed an application for restoration of the appeal to file. No doubt that restoration application was unduly delayed and there is no explanation offered for the delay caused. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 27-2-1973 (Petitioner's Annexure-C), dismissed the restoration application on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Hence this writ petition.

( 3 ) BEFORE considering the instant question arising in the present writ petition, it may be relevant to note that the Madhya Pradesh State Transport Appellate tribunal (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1972, came into force with effect from 11-8-1972. Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 4 of the said Rules provides as follows:

"unless otherwise expressly provided in the Act or in these Rules, tbe procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908)shall, so far as may be, be followed in all proceedings under these rules. "

Therefore, by virtue of the said Rules, now after 11-8-1972, the State Transport appellate Tribunal can resort to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure so far as they may be made applicable to a particular situation. But prior to the coming into force of these Rules on 11-8-1972, no procedure was prescribed for the Appellate Tribunal to follow any course of action. So far as the Regional transport Authorities are concerned, the procedure has been prescribed by the rules and there is no provision for application of the provisions of the Code of civil Procedure.

( 4 ) AS regards the procedure to be followed by the Regional Transport Authority, a Full Bench of this Court in Surendra v. State Transport Appellate Authority, 1970 MPLJ 253 = (AIR 1970 Madh Pra 230) (FB), laid down that a. Regional transport Authority has no jurisdiction to dismiss an application in default and that in the absence of a party, the Regional Transport Authority is bound to consider the case on merits. That principle, in our opinion, would be applicable to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as well before the new Rules were brought into force from 11-8-1972. We do not find any reason to depart from the reasoning of the said Full Bench which, in our opinion, would be applicable to the proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal as well before 11-8-1972. However, after the new Rules have been brought into force, the position so far as the Appellate Tribunal is concerned would altogether change and it is now open to the Appellate Tribunal to resort to the provisions of the Code of Civil procedure so far as they can be found applicable. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal i