Summary
The Supreme Court upheld a State Transport Authority order signed by its Chairperson and one member after a third member, who attended the hearing, was transferred. The three-person quorum had been complete at the hearing. No special voting majority was prescribed for an ordinary meeting, so the two signatories constituted a valid majority even assuming the transferred member disagreed. Both High Court judgments invalidating the order were set aside.
Issues
- Whether an order signed by two of the three members who heard the matter became invalid when the third member was transferred.
Provisions considered
- Rule 63(4)–(7), Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994The prescribed three-person quorum was complete at the hearing; later transfer and absence of one signature did not invalidate the majority decision. (¶¶ 8, 10, 12, 15, 25, 26)
- Rule 65(2)–(4), Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994Distinguished special requirements for decisions by circulation from an ordinary quorate meeting, where a simple majority sufficed. (¶¶ 9, 16, 17)
Held
- The Chairperson and two members heard the applicant and objectors at the duly constituted meeting. The record contradicted the High Court’s suggestion that a complete quorum had not heard the matter. The issue about competence had also not been pleaded in the writ petition. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 19)
- Ordinarily a multi-member body decides by the majority of members present unless its governing law prescribes a different majority. The rules contained no special majority for an ordinary Authority meeting; two of the three members therefore expressed a binding majority. The separate circulation provisions did not govern this case. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22)
- There was no evidence whether the transferred member agreed. Even assuming disagreement, the Chairperson and remaining member formed the majority of those who heard the application. Their signed order remained valid; unanimity or the transferred member’s signature was unnecessary in these circumstances. (¶¶ 21, 23, 24, 25, 26)
Result
State’s appeal allowed; Single Judge and Division Bench judgments set aside. The Authority’s order was held valid under the statutory scheme.