Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 – rr.63, 65 – Legality of the order by State Transport Authority – On facts, State Transport Authority allowed the application for modification of time schedule for movement of the vehicle, by order dated 15.12.2014 – Matter was heard by the Authority on 16.10.2014, where chairperson and two members were present, however, the order was delivered on 15.12.2014 with the signatures of Chairperson and only one member, since one member was transferred in the meanwhile – Legality of the order dated 15.12.2014 – Held: 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 r.65(4) but instant case not being a case of decision by circulation, simple majority by members present was sufficient for making a binding decision by the State Transport Authority – Hearing took place on 16.10.2014 where the Chairperson and two members were present the quorum being three as per r.68(1) was complete – Further, there being neither any pleading nor any material to hold that the third member has agreed with the opinion, the present case is examined as if, the third member did not agree with the order proposed – Thus, 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, and was fully in accordance with the statutory scheme of the 1994 Rules – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.68(1) and (3).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the instant 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. 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 the Single Judge had categorically noted that the above issue was raised only during the hearing before the Single Judge and there was no pleading in the writ petition. [Para 12][452-F-H; 453-A]
1.2 The multi-member body transacts its business after debate, consultation and discussion. The view of multi-member body is expressed unanimously or by votes. For various kind of decisions by multi-member body special majorities are also provided for acceptance of the decision. Normally, all decisions of a multi-member body are expressed by opinion of majority of the members present except where the special majorities are provided in the statute itself. [Para 13][453-C-D]
1.3 Although Rules, 1994 do not expressly provide that decision of the State Transport Authority shall be taken in accordance with the opinions of the majority but there being no special majority provided for decision to be taken in the meeting of the State Transport Authority, normal, rule that decision by majority of the members present has to be followed. In the instant case, when three members were present and quorum was complete, the decision taken by majority, i.e., opinion of two members shall form the valid decision of the State Transport Authority. [Para 15][454-B-C]
1.4 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. [Para 17][454-E]
1.5 It is clear that observation of the Division Bench of the High Court that there is nothing on record to indicate that the quorum of State Transport Authority was complete, is factually wrong. The order of the State Transport Authority dated 15.12.2014 has been brought on record and the relevant portion of the order has been extracted which clearly mentions that the hearing took place on 16.10.2014 where the Chairperson and two members were present the quorum being three as per Rule 68(1) was complete. Thus, observation of the Division Bench of the High Court that quorum was not complete and matter was not heard by three members is not correct. [Para 19][454-H; 455A-C]
1.6 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. [Para 21][455-G-H]
1.7 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. [Para 21][456-C]
1.8 There is no pleading in the writ petition as to whether the third member, who was transferred had agreed with the proposed order or did not agree with the decision, which was to be delivered by the State Transport Authority. Had third member agreed, there cannot be any debate in this matter. But there being neither any pleading nor any material to come to the conclusion that the third member has agreed with the opinion, the present case is examined as if, the third member did not agree with the order proposed. 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 order dated 15.12.2014, which was signed by the Chairperson and one member. [Para 25][458-E-H]
1.9 The decision dated 15.12.2014 issued with the signatures of Chairperson and one member was a valid decision in spite of the fact that one of the members who was present in the hearing when the meeting took place on 16.10.2014 and had been transferred in the meanwhile did not sign the order. The decision of the State Transport Authority dated 15.12.2014 was fully in accordance with the statutory scheme of the Rules, 1994 and both the Single Judge and Division Bench erred in holding the decision as invalid. Thus, the judgments of the High Court are set aside. [Paras 26, 27][459-A-C]
Ramaswamy Nadar v. The State of Madras AIR 1958 SC 56 : [1958] SCR 739; Gokal Chand Jagan Nath v. Nand Ram Das Atma Ram AIR (1938) P.C. 292; A. Shanta Rao v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad & Ors. AIR 1985 A.P. 256 – referred to. “Law and Practice of Meetings” by Shackleton
Eleventh Edn – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.