STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ANR. versus MAHENDRA GUPTA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 443 · Decided: 08-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
443
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY & ANR.
v.
MAHENDRA GUPTA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1562 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 08, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
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
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 443
443
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
445
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 whic

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.