The objections of the aforesaid Drivers were obtained until the aforesaid fixed date.
Following was laid down in Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 A further point was raised by the appellants.
Signature Not Verified The parties shall be described as referred to in the writ Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date 2018.02.08 petition.
The learned Single Judge accepted the companytention of the writ petitioners and allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 15.12.2014.
The State of Madhya Pradesh filed writ appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Singe Judge.
In the writ petition various grounds were taken questioning the application filed by the applicantPawan Arora.
The companyy of the order dated 15.12.2014 has been brought on record as Annexure P1 which clearly mentions the date of hearing, i.e., 16.10.2014.
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.
Respondent No.3 has also the permanent permit for the route Gwalior to Jhansi.
The Rules have been framed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, namely, the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994.
It is useful to extract only the relevant parts of the order for the present case THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MADHYA PRADESH MOTIMAHAL, GWALIOR Agenda Serial No.71 Case No.2159/2014 Hearing on 16.10.2014 Before Pramod Agrawal Chairperson Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Government Transport Department, Bhopal Sanjay Chaudhary Member Transport Commissioner Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Rajiv Sharma Member Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Gwalior 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 numberice board of the Office and all regional additional regional District Transport Office.
Sd sd/ Member Member State Transport Authority State Transport Authority Madhya Pradesh The only issue which needs to be companysidered in this appeal is as to 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 companyld 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.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are 173425 IST Reason The writ petitioners have permanent permit for two routes, one Gwalior to Bhander and second Gwalior to Datia.
The relevant facts on this issue are that the hearing in the High Court was before two Judges, Harrison and Agha Haider JJ.,
The applicant as well as the companynsel for the objectors were heard on 16.10.2014.
One of the grounds taken before the learned Single Judge was that although the State Transport Authority heard the matter on 16.10.2014 companysisted 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.
They urged that the judgment of the High Court appealed from was number a valid judgment because it failed to companyply with Order XLI, Rule 31, of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The State companytended before the Division Bench of the High Court that there was numberillegality 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 case was presented in the meeting dated 16.10.2014 of the State Transport Authority.
Respondent No.3 preferred an application for modification of time schedule for movement of his vehicle.
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.
But Harrison J. went on leave before signing the judgment, which was signed by Agha Haider J., the Deputy Registrar appending a numbere that Harrison J. had gone on leave before signing the judgment he delivered.
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 order was issued by the State Transport Authority on 15.12.2014.
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.
On the date of hearing both companynsel for the applicant as well as companynsel 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.
On the day of hearing, on behalf of the parties their appointed companynsels appeared, who were heard.
The application of Respondent No.3 came for hearing before the State Transport Authority on 16.10.2014.
The judgment was delivered on February 22, 1933.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 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.
