Statutory tribunal composition controls quorum rules; an improperly constituted quasi-judicial body cannot validly decide permit applications.
The High Court held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 can examine whether a rule exceeds the rule-making power or conflicts with the parent Act, so the challenge to the tribunal rule was maintainable. It further held that a quorum rule governing administrative business cannot validate quasi-judicial decisions by a body not constituted in the manner required by the statute; the prescribed composition and limited delegation mechanism had to be followed. A smaller body deciding renewal and grant of stage carriage permits was therefore without jurisdiction, the permit order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision according to law.
Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could examine the vires of a rule said to govern the constitution and functioning of a statutory tribunal in proceedings under Article 227. (ii) Whether the quorum rule applicable to the Regional Transport Authority could be used to validate a smaller body deciding quasi-judicial applications for renewal and grant of stage carriage permits.
Issue (i): Whether the High Court could examine the vires of a rule said to govern the constitution and functioning of a statutory tribunal in proceedings under Article 227.
Analysis: The bar that prevents a statutory tribunal from questioning the validity of its parent enactment does not extend in the same manner to a challenge that a rule is inconsistent with the Act. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 includes the power to keep a statutory tribunal within the limits fixed by the statute, and a contention that a rule exceeds the rule-making power or conflicts with the Act can therefore be examined by the Court.
Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected, and the challenge to the rule was held maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the quorum rule applicable to the Regional Transport Authority could be used to validate a smaller body deciding quasi-judicial applications for renewal and grant of stage carriage permits.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 44 contemplates a tribunal constituted with a chairman having judicial experience and a prescribed number of members, and permits departure from that composition only through the limited delegation mechanism expressly provided in Section 44(5). Rule-making power under Section 68 is ancillary and cannot enlarge that statutory exception by allowing a fluctuating quorum for quasi-judicial adjudication. A quorum rule may regulate administrative business, but when the Authority acts quasi-judicially it must be properly constituted in accordance with the Act and must decide as the tribunal contemplated by the statute. A rule that permits a lesser number to hear and decide such matters is inconsistent with the statutory scheme and with the principles of natural justice.
Conclusion: Rule 67(5) was held inapplicable to quasi-judicial business and the impugned order passed by the smaller body was without jurisdiction.
Final Conclusion: The impugned permit order was quashed, and the matter was sent back to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh decision according to law.
Ratio Decidendi: A procedural quorum rule cannot override the statutory composition of a quasi-judicial tribunal or enlarge the sole statutory exception for delegation; any decision made by an improperly constituted tribunal is a nullity.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
