TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he scheme of the Rules. Although, where a decision is to be taken by the circulation by votes a special majority is provided in Rule 65(4) but present being not a case of decision by circulation, simple majority by members present was sufficient for making a binding decision by the State Transport Authority. The present is a case where decision by a multi member body is to be taken in the meeting of the Committee as per the statutory Rules. There being no such majority provided for taking a decision, the decision by majority has to be accepted as the opinion of the State Transport Authority. There being neither any pleading nor any material to come to the conclusion that the third member has agreed with the opinion, we have proceeded to examine the present case as if, the third member did not agree with the order proposed. We have already noticed the reason for coming to the conclusion that the order issued by the State Transport Authority, signed by the Chairperson and one member is a valid order having been issued with the majority opinion of two out of three, who heard the application on 16.10.2014. Thus, in any view of the matter, no illegality can be attached with the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the order was delivered with the signatures of Chairperson and only one member, since one member, Shri Sanjay Choudhary was transferred in the meanwhile, hence, the order dated 15.12.2014 is illegal. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the writ petitioners and allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 15.12.2014. 3. The State of Madhya Pradesh filed writ appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Singe Judge. The State contended before the Division Bench of the High Court that there was no illegality in the order issued by the Chairperson and one member, although, it was heard by three members when the meeting took place on 16.10.2014. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal upholding the view of the learned Single Judge. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal contends that under the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 quorum of the meeting of the State Transport Authority is three Chairman plus two members and quorum was complete when the meeting was held on 16.10.2014, the decision delivered by the majority of the members is in no manner illegal. It is submitted that after hearing, one member w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... powers and functions, namely : (a) to co ordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authorities, if any, of the State ; (b) to perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such Authority and, if it thinks fit or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions; (c) to settle all disputes and decide all matters on which differences of opinion arise between Regional Transport Authorities; [(ca) Government to formulate routes for playing stage carriages;] and (d) to discharge such other functions as may be prescribed. 8. The Rules have been framed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, namely, the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. Chapter V of the Rules contains heading Control of Transport Vehicles . Rule 63 provides for State Transport Authority. Rule 63(4) to (7) are quoted as below: 63. State Transport Authority. (4) The State Transport Authority shall meet at such time and at such place as the Chairman may appoint. (5) Not less than three days' notice shall be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (4) The number of votes, excluding the Chairman's second or casting vote, necessary for a decision to be taken upon procedure by circulation shall not be less than the members necessary to constitute a quorum. xxx xxx xxx xxx 10. The facts of the case, as noted above, reveal that State Transport Authority convened the meeting of the Authority by issuing the Agenda for 16.10.2014. In addition to Chairperson, two members - Shri Sanjay Chaudhary, Transport Commissioner and Shri Rajiv Sharma, Chief Engineer, Public Works Department were present in the meeting. The applicant as well as the counsel for the objectors were heard on 16.10.2014. The decision of the Committee was issued on 15.12.2014 which was signed by the Chairperson and only one member, Shri Rajiv Sharma, since, after the date of the hearing and before the issuance of the order one member, Shri Sanjay Chaudhary was transferred. The copy of the order dated 15.12.2014 has been brought on record as Annexure P1 which clearly mentions the date of hearing, i.e., 16.10.2014. It is useful to extract only the relevant parts of the order for the present case: THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be given to the members and quorum of the meeting is the Chairman or the nominated Chairman and two other members, i.e., quorum is three. In the present case, there is no dispute that when the meeting was held on 16.10.2014 quorum was complete since Chairperson and two members were present which fact is clearly noticed in the order dated 15.12.2014 as extracted above. The three members who were present in the meeting heard the applicant and objectors. But the order could be issued only on 15.12.2014, by which one of the members had been transferred and was not available to sign the order. One more important fact which is to be noticed is that learned Single Judge had categorically noted that the above issue was raised only during the hearing before the learned Single Judge and there was no pleading in the writ petition. In paragraph 16 of the judgment, learned Single Judge himself has noticed the following: 16. The last question raised by the parties is about the competency of the STA in passing the impugned order. Although there is no pleading in this regard in this petition. However, learned senior counsel, Shri K.N. Gupta has not disputed the fact that the matter was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65(2) The State or Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may decide any matter of urgent nature without holding a meeting by the majority of votes of members by recorded in writing and send to the Secretary (hereinafter referred to as the procedure by circulation). 17. Thus, the concept of taking decision by majority of votes of the members is very much present in the scheme of the Rules. Although, where a decision is to be taken by the circulation by votes a special majority is provided in Rule 65(4) but present being not a case of decision by circulation, simple majority by members present was sufficient for making a binding decision by the State Transport Authority. 18. In paragraph 18.1 of the judgment, the Division Bench observed that: 18.1. In the instant case there is nothing on record to indicate that the STA with complete quorum heard the matter and before one of the members Shri Sanjay Chaudhry was transferred out any draft order was got approved from the said transferred member. 19. The above observation was made by the Division Bench of the High Court while distinguishing the judgment of this Court in Ramaswamy Nadar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... third member whether agreeing or not agreeing with the decision. For the present case, we proceed on the premise that the third member did not agree with the decision. For the decisions of this Court, Article 145 sub-clause (5) of the Constitution of India provides that judge of this Court can deliver a judgment with the concurrence of a majority of the Judges present at the hearing of the case. 22. The present is a case where decision by a multi member body is to be taken in the meeting of the Committee as per the statutory Rules. There being no such majority provided for taking a decision, the decision by majority has to be accepted as the opinion of the State Transport Authority. 23. Two more cases, which were relied by the appellant and noticed by the High Court need to be noted. The Privy Council judgment in Gokal Chand Jagan Nath Vs. Nand Ram Das Atma Ram, AIR (1938) P.C. 292, is relevant for the present case. In the appeal before the Privy Council, judgment of the High Court was assailed on the ground that the two Hon'ble Judges of the High Court heard the matter, although, both judges concurred with the judgment, but one Judge went on leavebefore si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ried nor shall any case be remanded, in appeal on account of any error, defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court. That Section conies in the part dealing with appeals from original decrees. But Section 108 applies the same provision to appeals from appellate decrees and it is always in the discretion of the Board to apply the principle on appeal to His Majesty in Council. In their Lordships' judgment, the defect here was an irregularity not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court, and is no ground for setting aside the decree. 24. Another judgment, which was cited by the appellant was A. Shanta Rao Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Ors., AIR 1985 A.P. 256. In the above case, State Transport Appellate Tribunal consisting of Chairman and two members heard the matter. However, the order was issued only with the signature of Chairman. The order was attacked on the groundthat the other two members having not signed the order, the order is illegal. Repelling the contention following was stated in Paragraph 9: 9. On the first question, I am of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
