J.V Gupta, J.:— This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated October 29, 1981, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed as having not been properly filed
2. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for the grant of a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from auctioning the bicycle stand. Along with the above said suit, an application under Order XXXIV rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, for the grant of a temporary injunction was also made which was partly allowed after hearing the parties, by the trial Court vide its order dated May 20, 1980. Feeling aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Patiala. Preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent in that appeal that it had not been properly filed as there was no resolution passed by the petitioner taking a decision to file the appeal and as such, that appeal was not competent. The learned Additional District Judge, took the view that the petitioner had to be sued through some living person, but that would not mean that that person would automatically acquire the right to file the appeal, end, therefore, the appeal filed by the General Manager of the petitioner as authorised by resolution dated March 22, 1976, a copy of which was produced on the file, was not competent, unless he was specially authorised by the petitioner by passing a resolution to that effect. In this view of the matter, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that under section 12 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act), the petitioner, by passing the resolution had authorised the General Manager, to engage counsel and representatives to act, appear and plead; to present pleadings suits, writs, appeals etc. and for the prosecution and defence of the cases file by or against the petitioner in or before any authority or Court including the Court of enquiry etc. Thus, according to the learned counsel, this general resolution being there, there was no necessity of passing any special resolution by the petitioner to authorise its General Manager to act or to plead in each and every case which may be filed against it. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner must act through its resolutions and unless their was a specific resolution authorising its General Manager to present or to file any appeal, the general resolution dated March 22, 1976, was not sufficient, and it did not authorise him to file the appeal. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Punjab Agricultural University v. Walia Brothers . 1969 71 PLR 257. and Garib Chand v. Municipal Committee, Budhlada . 1979 81 PLR 527., which were also cited before the lower appellate Court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that there is force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner
5. Under Section 2(b) of the Act, Corporation means a Road Transport Corporation establised under section 3 thereof. Section 3 provides that the State Government, having regard to,—
(a) the advantages offered to the public, trade and industry by the development of road transport;
(b) the desirability of coordinating any form of road transport with any other form of transport;
(c) the desirability of extending and improving the facilities for road transport in any area and of providing an efficient and economical system of road transport service therein;
may, by notification in the official Gazette, establish a Road Transport Corporation for the whole or any part of the State under such name as may be specified in the notification Section 4 provides that every Corporation shall be a body corporate by the name notified under section 3 having perpetual succession and a common seal, and shall by the said name sue and be sued. Section 5 provides for the constitution of a Road Transport Corporation which shall consist of the chairman and the member. Section II inter alia provides that a Corporation shall meet at such times and places and shall, subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3), observe such rules of procedure in regard to transaction of business at its meetings as may be provided by regulations made under this Act; provided that the Corporation shall meet at least once in every three months. Section 12 reads,——
“A corporation may, from time to time, by resolution passed at a meeting——
(a) appoint committees of its members for performing such functions as may be specified in the resolution;
(b) delegate to any such committee or to the Chairman or Vice-Chairman, subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as may be specified in the resolution, such of its powers and duties as it may think fit;
(c) authorise the Chief Executive Officer or General Manager or any other officer of the Corporation subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as may be specified in the resolution to exercise such powers and perform such duties as it may deem necessary for the efficient day to day administration of its business”
6. Thus, it is clear that under section 12, a Corporation may authorise its General Manager or any other officer to exercise such powers and to perform such duties as it may deem necessary for the efficient day-today administration of its business Thus, by virtue of these powers, the petitioner has authorised its General Manager to engage counsel, representatives, to act appear and plead in suits appeals etc. and to defend the cases filed by or against it in any Court. It could not be successfully argued that the petitioner is expected to take a decision for each and every case which may be filed against it in a Court of Law. The resolution dated March 22, 1976, a copy of which was produced on the file before the lower appellate Court, as well as the resolution dated 14.5.1981 fully authorised the General Manager to act on behalf of the petitioner in all the cases filed or to be filed by or against it. The passing of any specific resolution is not contemplated under the Act in each and every case Moreover, it will depend upon the constitution of a Corporation and the manner in which its functions are regulated by the statute itself. There cannot be any universal rule that every Corporation must act through resolutions passed by it, in each and every case. Therefore, the cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondent are not at all applicable to the present case. As regards the constitution of the petitioner, it was constituted under the Act. Section 12 thereof clearly provides inter alia that it may authorise any of its officers to perform its duties, as provided therein. In this view of the matter, the order of the lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside.
7. Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the lower appellate Court is set aside and the case is sent back for decision on merits in accordance with law to the Additional District Judge, Patiala. The parties, through their counsel, have been directed to appear before him on May 25, 1982. No costs.
R.M.S
Petition allowed.