Case: State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary &amp; Another Vs. Mahendra Gupta &amp; Others

Judge, the latter agreeing. The judgment was delivered on February 22, 1933. But Harrison J. went on leave before signing the judgment, which was signed by Agha Haider J., the Deputy Registrar appending a note that Harrison J. had gone on leave before signing the judgment he delivered.7. Order XLI, Rule 31 requires that the judgment of the appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state various matters, and "shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein."8. The Rule does not say that if its requirements are not complied with the judgment shall be a nullity. So startling a result would need clear and precise words. Indeed the Rule does not even state any definite time in which it is to be fulfilled. The time is left to be defined by what is reasonable. The Rule from its very nature is not intended to affect the rights of parties to a judgment. It is intended to secure certainty in the ascertainment of what the judgment was. It is a rule which Judges are required to comply with for that object. No doubt in practice Judges do so comply, as it is their duty to do. But accidents may happen. A Judge may die after giving judgment but before he has had a reasonable opportunity to sign it. The Court must have inherent jurisdiction to supply such a defect. The case of a Judge who has gone on leave before signing the judgment may call for more comment, but even so the convenience of the Court and the interest of litigants must prevail. The defect is merely an irregularity. But in truth the difficulty is disposed of by Sections 99 and 108 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 99 provides that no decree shall be reversed or substantially varied 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 ground that 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 the view that once the minutes of the State Transport Authority are found to be signed by all the members including the Chairman, the mere fact that the final order is communicated under the signature of the Chairman alone does not amount to any illegality. The Court has to see the substance of the matter and not the mere form, and if it is clear that all the members of the Tribunal have applied their mind to the facts of the case and arrived at a conclusion, it does not matter if the communication is made under the signature of the Chairman. "25. Although, in above two cases, there was concurrence of all the members of Court/Tribunal but all had not signed the order. The present is a case where Chairperson and two members heard the application in meeting dated 16.10.2014 but order was subsequently pronounced on 15.12.2014 and signed by only Chairperson and one member. The third member having been transferred in the meanwhile. As noticed above, 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, the issues being covered by judgment of this Court in Ramaswamy Nadar(supra) and judgment of the Privy Council in Gokal Chand Jagan Nath (supra). But 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 order dated 15.12.2014, which was signed by the Chairperson and one member.26. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that 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 learned Single Judge and Division Bench erred in holding the decision as invalid. We, thus, are of the view that judgments of learned Single Judge and Division Bench do not express the correct view of the law.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]15. 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 present 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.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.The above observation was made by the Division Bench of the High Court while distinguishing the judgment of this Court in Ramaswamy Nadar v. The State of Madras, AIR 1958 SC 56  . Before we refer to the decision of this Court in Ramaswamy Nadar, 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 as Annexure P1 and the relevant portion of the order has been extracted above by us 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. The hearing took place by three members which is noted in the order itself, as extracted above. 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.The present is a case where decision by a multimember 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.Although, in above two cases, there was concurrence of all the members of Court/Tribunal but all had not signed the order. The present is a case where Chairperson and two members heard the application in meeting dated 16.10.2014 but order was subsequently pronounced on 15.12.2014 and signed by only Chairperson and one member. The third member having been transferred in the meanwhile. As noticed above, 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, the issues being covered by judgment of this Court in Ramaswamy Nadar(supra) and judgment of the Privy Council in Gokal Chand Jagan Nath (supra). But 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 order dated 15.12.2014, which was signed by the Chairperson and one member.26. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that 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 learned Single Judge and Division Bench erred in holding the decision as invalid. We, thus, are of the view that judgments of learned Single Judge and Division Bench do not express the correct view of the law.