Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 4755
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
Anand Moudgil – Appellant
Versus
R.D. Nazeem and others – Respondent
Review Petition No.21 of 2025
For the Petitioner: In person
For the Respondents:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General
Review petitions require clear evidence of error; mere dissatisfaction with a decision does not suffice for review.
Headnote:(A) Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999 - Rule 57 - Review of order - Petitioner contended that decision of State Transport Authority was invalid as minutes were not signed by all members - Court found that quorum was met and decision-making process complied with statutory rules - No apparent error found warranting review. (Paras 3-5)
(B) Review Jurisdiction - Limited scope of review does not permit re-evaluation of facts unless there is an apparent error on record. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a review of the dismissal of COPC No.22 of 2025, claiming the decision of the State Transport Authority was invalid due to improper signing of minutes. The respondents provided evidence of compliance with statutory rules and quorum requirements.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the decision-making process was valid despite the minutes not being signed by all members present. No error was found in the original order dismissing the contempt petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the decision of the State Transport Authority was valid given the signing of the minutes by only two members.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the quorum requirements were met and the decision was valid, emphasizing the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
Result: Review petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner argues that the decision is invalid due to improper signing of minutes. (Para 3) |
| 2. court finds that the decision-making process complied with statutory requirements. (Para 4) |
Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: In person, through video conference.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner in person seeks review of the order dated 10.03.2025, whereby COPC No.22 of 2025 instituted by him was dismissed with the observation that the ipetitioner would be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievance against the consideration order/ decision taken by the State Transport Authority in accordance with law.
2. Anand Moudgil Versus State Transport Authority & Another2 instituted by the petitioner was disposed of on
02.12.2024 with following operative directions:-
“8. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed. Annexure P-5 dated 27.06.2024 is quashed and set-aside. Respondent No.1-State Transport Authority is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of Stage Carriage Permit, afresh, within four weeks’ from the date of this order.
9. Needless to say, afore authority while doing the needful in terms of directions contained in terms of instant .order shall do the needful strictly in terms of preHscribed procedure contemplated under Section 72(1) read with Section 80(2) of the Act, read with Rule 57 & 60 of Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules , 1999, as well as law laid down in cases titled Mithilesh Garg Vs. Union of India, 1992 (1) SCC 168o, Pancham Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2008 (7) SCC 117, State of U.P. Vs. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358. Since matter is hanging fire for long, this Court hopes and trusts that appropriate decision shall be taken by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks, by auffording due opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as other stakeholders. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.”
With the grievance that the respondents had violathed the above directions, petitioner instituted COPC No.22 of 2025. Alongwith reply to the contempt petition, the respondents placed on record the decision taken by the State Transport Authority (STA) in its meeting convened on
27.12.2024, as conveyed to the petitioner on 18.01.2025.
Taking note of the decision taken by the STA, proceedings in the contempt petition were closed on 10.03.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievance against the
2 CWP No.6578 of 2024, decided on 02.12.2024 consideration order/decision taken by the STA in accordance with law.
3. Petitioner now seeks review of the order dated
10.03.2025, whereby COPC No.22 of 2025 was disposed of. The sole ground for review of the aforesaid order is that the minutes of meeting convened by the STA on 27.12.2024 were signed only by two members, therefore, such minutes cannot be construed as decision of the STA. Reliance in support of this submission tis placed upon State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary & Anr. v. Mahendra Gupta & Ors.3. Petitioner in person contends that in view of paras 24 to 26 of the aforesaid decision, the order passed by the STA is required to be signed by all its members. In the instant case, the order has been signed only by the Chairman and the Member Secretary of the STA, hence, it cannot be said to be valid and legal in the eyes of law.
4. I have heard the petitioner in person as also the learned Assistant Advocate General.
The respondents have placed on record detailed instruction
