( 1 ) THE petitioner claims a writ of certionari for quashing the order passed by the state Transport Appellate Authority on 26-5-1972, filed as Annexure 'c' by which the case regarding grant of a regular permit on Guna-Mungawali route has been remanded to the Regional Transport Authority for taking a fresh decision and disposing of the matter according to law.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the purposes of this petition are that applications were invited for one return-trip permit on the aforesaid route by the Regional transport Authority, Gwalior. The petitioner and other respondent Nos. 3 to 5, were co-applicants. After publication of the applications, the question of grant of permit was considered by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 3-10-1968. The Regional Transport Authority, however, rejected all the applications on 4-10-1968 on the ground that because a portion of about 38 miles of the route was covered by an approved scheme of nationalisation of transport services, known as scheme No. 54, the route was not available for grant of permit to other operators and was reserved for operation by the State undertaking in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid scheme of nationalisation. The petitioner and other respondents, Nos. 3 to 5, preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal at Gwalior. The Appellate Tribunal was, however, of the opinion that the Regional Transport authority had wrongly rejected the applications on the ground which did not exist. As a matter of fact, the route in question was not reserved for exclusive operation by the State Undertaking according to clause 5 of the Nationalisation scheme and as such the ap-plications were liable to be considered on merits. It is evident from the order ol the Regional Transport Authority that the applications were rejected without consideration on merits under a wrong notion that the route was not available for operation by other operators. The state Transnort Appellate Tribunal, however, instead of itself taking a decision for grant of. permit in favour of any operator, remanded the case to the regional Transport Authority with a direction that the applications be disposed of by him according to law after considering the merits of the applicants. The appeals registered as appeal No. A-407/68 (by Mulakhraj --the petitioner, No. A-048/68 (by Satyendra Prakash Tiwari -- respondent 3), No. A-4,74/69 (by ramnath -- Respondent No. 4) and A-56/70 (by Vishan-das -- Respondent No. 5) were thus partly allowed and the cases were remanded to the Regional transport Authority.

( 3 ) THE petitioner challenges the aforesaid order of the State Government appellate Tribunal on the following two grounds:--

(1) That the Appellate Tribunal could not and should not have sent back the cases to the Regional Transport Authority, but should have itself decided the same because all relevant material was available on record, and even if some further material was needed, the same could have been obtained by the Appellate Tribunal; (2) That the operative part of the order of the Appellate Tribunal creates scope for considering the cases of even such applicants who had not preferred any appeal before the appellate Tribunal against the order rejecting their applications.

( 4 ) SHRI V. S. Dabir. learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Surendra Mohan Chaurasiya v. State Transport Appellate authority, 1970 MPLJ 253 = (AIR 1970 Madh Pra 230 ). Shri Dabir contended that the ratio of the aforesaid decision by the Full Bench of this Court clearly laid down that the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in making the order of remand. He went to the extent of saying that there was no such power of remand with the Appellate Tribunal unless it was shown that the material on record was insufficient to decide the matter and that further enquiry, which was necessary, was of such a nature that it could not be conveni