IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No.21 of 2025 Decided on: 16th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anand Moudgil …..Petitioner Versus R.D. Nazeem and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 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 petitioner 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:- 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 “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 prescribed 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 168, 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 affording 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 violated 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 3 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 is 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 instructions dated 03.06.2025. As per these instructions:- 3 (2018) 1 S.C.R. 443 4  The meeting of STA held on 27.12.2024 was duly convened by its authorized and functioning members.  In terms of Rule 57 of the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999, the quorum of the State Transport Authority is that of three members. Meeting of the STA convened on 27.12.2024 was attended by six members including the Chairman. All these members participated in the meeting. The attendance sheet of STA meeting dated 27.12.2024 has been placed on record, which gives credence to the factual stand taken by the respondents.  The minutes of meeting were signed by the Chairman and Member Secretary of the STA. Copy of the minutes was duly circulated to all the members. Merely because the minutes of meeting of STA were not signed by all the members, who were present, would not make the decision of the respondents less efficacious, specially when the decision making process complied with the Statutory Rules and quorum requirements. Ratio of the decision in Mahendra Gupta3, relied upon by the petitioner, is not applicable to the case in hand, as it is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that other members did not agree with the decision taken by the 5 STA. The above observations have only been expressed to see any basis for reviewing the order dated 10.03.2025 passed in COPC No.22 of 2025. 5. In view of above, no case for review is made out. There is neither any apparent error nor any mistake in the face of record, warranting review under the limited scope provided by the law. Hence, the review petition is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. It is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy against the decision taken by the STA. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 16, 2025 Judge Mukesh