The validity of tribunal orders is upheld if minutes show all members' consent, despite procedural irregularities in signing.

1. The manner in which the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is to exercise its quasi - judicial functions, falls for consideration in this case.

2. The brief facts are like this : -
The petitioner is plying a stage carriage bus on an inter - state route from Nivagam to Parlakimidi. As the route was not very profitable, and as the petitioner was having spare time for his vehicle from 10-30 a.m. to 12 noon at Hiramandalam, the petitioner made an application for variation of the conditions of his permit, granting an additional trip from Hiramandalam to Kothur during the aforesaid idle spare time. The petitioner also stated that there was no change in the existing timings of his vehicle in its trips on the other sectors of the route. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation stated that it had no objection. The third respondent and other objectors, however, raised objections to the notification, as according to them, the additional trip is shown as Parlakimidi to Hiramandalam instead of Hiramandalam to Kothur. The second respondent, namely, the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh, Hyd. found that there was an occupational ratio of 96.5% for granting an extra single trip from Hiramandalam to Kothur. He also held that the timings notified under S.57(3) as per the petitioner's application was referable to Hiramandalam to Kothur and not Parlakimidi to Hiramandalam. The second respondent granted the variation of the conditions of the petitioner's permit.

3. The third respondent one A. Mohan Rao, then filed a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A. P. and raised a contention that the application was defective etc. However, during the course of arguments, the counsel for the third respondent raised a question that the order of the State Transport Authority was liable to be set aside inasmuch as the order was signed only by the Chairman, and not by the other members. The petitioner's counsel contended that this ground was not taken in the petition, but the Tribunal ultimately accepted the contention raised by the 3rd respondent, namely that the State Transport Authority's order was vitiated inasmuch as the order was signed only by the Chairman and not by the other members. Against the above order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. It is contended in this writ petition by Mr. R. Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner that all the members of the State Transport Authority heard the matter and if only the minutes of the said authority had been called for by the Appellate Tribunal, it would have been clear that in the minutes all the members including the Chairman signed. He also contends that the mere fact that the order that was communicated to the parties was signed only by the Chairman should be treated only as an irregularity. It is further pointed out that when an application was filed for calling for the records, the learned Tribunal without calling for the records, pronounced orders, accepting the contention raised on behalf of the third respondent.

5. With a view to clarify the ambiguity in the order of the Tribunal, I have called for the proceedings of the State Transport Authority. The minutes of the State Transport Authority it is now not in dispute, clearly indicate that all the members have signed therein in token of the decision that was taken at the meeting, in favour of the petitioner.

6. Even so, the learned counsel for the third respondent Sri. T.