B. L Yadav, J. - (1.) THESE two petitions involve common question of law and facts, therefore, it is proper to dispose of them by common order.
(2.) THESE petitions are directed against the common orders dated th August, 1988 and 8th August, 1988 passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal U. P. Lucknow allowing the appeals under section 64 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act), preferred by the respondents 3 to 16 against the petitioners who were granted Stage Carriage Permits by the Regional Transport Authority, and remanding the case to the Regional Transport Authority for decision afresh. The short question for determination is whether the State Transport Appellate Tribunal while deciding appeals under section 64 of the Act has power to pass an order of remand and whether the application made by Abdul Shami Khan, the respondent no. 16 (the respondent no. 15 in the next case) before the Regional Transport Authority Bareilly, can be disposed of subsequently by the Regional Transport Authority Moradabad created vide notification dated 5-12-80. The portrayal of essential facts are these. The petitioners were granted regular stage carriage permits by Regional Transport Authority Bareilly and the applications of respondents were rejected except the application of Abdul Shami Khan, who was also one of the appellants before the respondent no. 1, his application was neither decided nor published as required under section 57 (3) of the Act. After dismissal of the applications of the respondents (except Abdul Shami Khan whose application was not disposed of) they preferred different appeals before the respondent no. 1 and in those appeals present petitioners were the respondents It was held by the respondent no. I that the application of Abdul Shami Khan, the respondent no 15/16 was not published as required by Sec 57 (3) of the Act nor the same was presented before the Regional Transport Authority hence the respective and comparative merits of all the applications could not be decided. The respondent no. 1 accordingly allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority for decision afresh.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners urged that there was no power of remand with the State Transport Appellate Tribunal while deciding an appeal under section 64 of the Act It was further urged that the application for the grant of permit on Bilaspur-Ahri-Shishgarh was within the jurisdiction of Regional Transport Authority Bareilly therefore that application made by Abdul Shami Khan cannot be decided by Regional Transport Authority Moradabad and the same cannot be made basis for the order of remand passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 29-9-78 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8527 of 1978 Smt. Premlata v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Lucknow and Trubuddin Haji Niaz Ahmad v. Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut, AIR 1972 Alld. 146. On the other hand learned counsel, representing respondents, urged that there is nothing to suggest that State Transport Appellate Tribunal shall have no power of making remand, hence in suitable cases the order of remand could be made. It was further urged that even though Regional Transport Authority Moradabad was subsequently created vide a notification under section 44 (i) but it has jurisdiction to decide the application made earlier before the Regional Transport Authority Bareilly as there could be no gap interregnum in the exercise of powers conferred by Chapter 4 Reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of this court in Ratan Lal Gupta v. Mohd. Ramjani, 1973 ALJ 131.;