An STA order passed virtually without circulating proceedings and obtaining all members’ signatures is invalid.

The petitioner had applied for stage carriage permits for the Manali–Shimla and Shimla–Chamba routes.

The State Transport Authority (STA) considered his applications at a meeting attended by its members, including the Member Secretary, through video conference.

The Member Secretary recorded the proceedings, but the impugned order dated 31 January 2025 was signed only by the Chairman and Member Secretary and sent to the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged the order, principally arguing that it lacked legal validity because it had not been signed by all STA members.

Whether an STA decision made at a meeting attended by members through video conference was legally valid when the order was signed only by the Chairman and Member Secretary

Whether the impugned order should be quashed and the permit applications reconsidered by the STA

Rule 57 of the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, governs the STA’s conduct of business.

It provides, among other things, that three members constitute a quorum and specifies the procedure where a quorum is not present.

The Court accepted that a meeting may be conducted virtually, but held that where the STA considers a matter in such a meeting, the procedure for circulating the matter and recording members’ agreement or dissent must be followed; the minutes and proposed order must be circulated, and the members must append their signatures to the proceedings and order.

The Court also directed the STA to take note of Sections 72(1) and 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the cited judgments, without further elaborating on their application.

The Court rejected the State’s contention that members’ participation in the virtual meeting, coupled with the absence of objection, validated an order signed only by the Chairman and Member Secretary.

Although virtual meetings were permissible, the required process for circulating the recorded proceedings and proposed order, and obtaining members’ signatures, had not been followed.

The Court therefore found that the impugned order lacked legal sanctity.

It directed the STA to reconsider and decide the petitioner’s applications afresh within four weeks, taking account of the Court’s observations; the meeting’s date and time were to be conveyed to the petitioner, who was directed to attend.

The STA was also directed to take note of Sections 72(1) and 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the cited judgments.