ORDER

1. Since the issue involved in both these petitions is one and the same, therefore, with the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, they are heard and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of M.P. No.214 of 2022 are being taken note of.

2. By the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 31.12.2021 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior, after setting aside the order dated 15.9.2020 passed by the Regional Transport Authority (respondent No.2), remitted the matter to it for deciding the application preferred by respondent No.3 for grant of permit along with the petitioner's application for renewal of permit analogously.

3. Facts of this petition multum in parvo are that the petitioner while holding a regular carriage permit for the route Rewa-Amarkantak one single trip by two vehicles in rotation which was valid up to 23.5.2020, has preferred an application under section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act, 1988') before respondent No.2 for renewal of his permit for a further period of five years. Respondent No.2, in turn, vide order dated 15.9.2020 (Annexure-P/3) has allowed the petitioner's application for renewal of permit for a further period of five years up to 24.5.2025.

(3.1) Challenging the order dated 15.9.2020 (AnnexureP/3), respondent No.3 preferred a petition i.e. W.P. No.11407 of 2021 [Manglani Bus Service v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others] before this Court wherein the main grievance of respondent No.3 was that while considering the application for renewal of permit of present petitioner, respondent No.2 had not considered the objection raised by him. However, it was also apprised to the Court that though the respondent No.3 preferred an appeal, but due to outbreak of COVID-19, it could not be decided. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 9.11.2021, disposed of that petition, directing the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal of the 5 MP No.214 of 2022 & MP No.213 of 2022 respondent No.3 within a period of 45 days. Subsequently, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 31.12.2021 (Annexure-P/1), after setting aside the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, remitted the matter to it observing therein that the Authority without considering the objection submitted by respondent No.3, allowed the application preferred by the present petitioner for renewal of his permit. The appellate authority had also directed the Regional Transport Authority to decide the fresh application for grant of permit on the same route submitted by respondent No.3 along with the petitioner's application for renewal of permit analogously.

(3.2) Being aggrieved with the order dated 31.12.2021 (Annexure-P/1), the petitioner has preferred this petition.

4. Mr. Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per section 81 of the Act, 1988, no other application except the application for renewal of permit can be decided by the Regional Transport Authority and, therefore, direction issued by the Appellate Authority for deciding both the applications viz. renewal of permit and grant of fresh permit, is contrary to law. He submits that the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority on 15.9.2020 (Annexure-P/3) whereby renewal of permit has been granted to the petitioner, is not appellable as per section 89 of the Act, 1988. However, he submits that the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority whereby renewal of permit has been granted in favour of the petitioner is revisable because as per section 90 of the Act, 1988, against the order passed by the said Authority, a revision is maintainable. He further submits that though this Court had disposed of the petition preferred by respondent No.3 with a direction to avail the alternative remedy of appeal, but it does not mean that the Appella