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

1. The State of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment of Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior dated 22.03.2017 by which judgment writ appeal filed by the State questioning the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.03.2015 has been dismissed.2. The parties shall be described as referred to in the writ petition. The facts giving rise to this appeal are:The writ petitioners have permanent permit for two routes, one Gwalior to Bhander and second Gwalior to Datia. Respondent No.3 has also the permanent permit for the route Gwalior to Jhansi. Respondent No.3 preferred an application for modification of time schedule for movement of his vehicle. The application of Respondent No.3 came for hearing before the State Transport Authority on 16.10.2014. On the date of hearing both counsel for the applicant as well as counsel for the objectors were heard. The State Transport Authority allowed the modification and decided to change the time schedule as prayed by the applicant in the public interest. The order was issued by the State Transport Authority on 15.12.2014. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2014, Writ Petition No.883 of 2015 was filed by the two petitioners who were objectors before the State Transport Authority. In the writ petition various grounds were taken questioning the application filed by the applicantPawan Arora. One of the grounds taken before the learned Single Judge was that although the State Transport Authority heard the matter on 16.10.2014 consisted of Chairperson and two members, however, 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.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.,is useful to extract only the relevant parts of the order for the presentSTATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,MADHYA PRADESH MOTIMAHAL, GWALIORAgenda Serial No.71Case No.2159/2014 Hearing on 16.10.2014Before:1.Pramod Agrawal Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Government Transport Department, BhopalChairperson2.Sanjay Chaudhary Transport Commissioner Madhya Pradesh, GwaliorMember3.Rajiv Sharma Chief Engineer Public Works Department,... ...... ... ...Listing the aforesaid application submitted by the applicant for hearing in the meeting of the State Transport Authority dated 16.10.2014 the same was included in the agenda and published on the Departmental Website and the notice board of the Office and all regional/ additional regional / District Transport Office. The objections of the aforesaid Drivers were obtained until the aforesaid fixed date.The case was presented in the meeting dated 16.10.2014 of the State Transport Authority. On the day of hearing, on behalf of the parties their appointed counsels appeared, who were heard.... ... ...... ... ...Note: Since one member Shri Sanjay Chaudhary of the Authority was transferred after hearing, the aforesaid order is being passed by the Chairperson and one member Chief Engineer of the Authority.Sd/sd/MemberMemberState Transport AuthorityState Transport AuthorityMadhyathe 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 theThe 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 heard by three members and order is passed by two members....."

Reasoning:
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.