2018 (2) TMI 1920 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether, when in the meeting dated 16.10.2014 the Chairperson and two members had heard the application for the change of the time schedule, the order could have been passed allowing the application by the two members (Chairperson and one member) alone, since the order was singed only by the Chairperson and one member, on 15.12.2014? HELD THAT - 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 - 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. 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 order dated 15.12.2014, which was signed by the Chairperson and one member. 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. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the State Transport Authority's decision made with signatures of only two members.
2. Quorum requirements for the State Transport Authority meetings.
3. Validity of decisions made by a majority in multi-member bodies.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the State Transport Authority's Decision Made with Signatures of Only Two Members:

The primary issue was whether the decision made by the State Transport Authority (STA) on 15.12.2014, signed by the Chairperson and one member, was valid despite being heard by three members on 16.10.2014. The petitioners argued that the decision was illegal because one member, who was part of the hearing, did not sign the decision due to his transfer. The court noted that the STA is a multi-member body, and decisions are generally made by a majority of the members present. The court concluded that the decision signed by the Chairperson and one member was valid, as it represented the majority opinion of the members who heard the application.

2. Quorum Requirements for the State Transport Authority Meetings:

The quorum for STA meetings, as per the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, is three members, including the Chairperson. The court confirmed that the quorum was complete during the hearing on 16.10.2014, as the Chairperson and two members were present. The decision was issued later, signed by the Chairperson and one member, due to the transfer of the third member. The court emphasized that the quorum requirement was met during the hearing, making the subsequent decision valid.

3. Validity of Decisions Made by a Majority in Multi-Member Bodies:

The court discussed the principle that decisions by multi-member bodies are typically made by a majority of the members present. This principle is supported by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. The court cited precedents, including the Privy Council judgment in Gokal Chand-Jagan Nath Vs. Nand Ram Das-Atma Ram and the Supreme Court judgment in Ramaswamy Nadar v. The State of Madras, to support the validity of majority decisions. The court concluded that the STA's decision, made by the majority of the members present at the hearing, was valid despite the absence of the third member's signature.

Conclusion:

The court held that the decision dated 15.12.2014, issued with the signatures of the Chairperson and one member, was valid. The judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, which declared the decision invalid, were set aside. The appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh was allowed, affirming the legality of the STA's decision based on the majority opinion of the members present at the hearing.