K. Lahiri, J.
1. 24 (twenty four) appeals have been disposed of by the Presiding Officer, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Assam, Gauhati, whose order does not contain even 24 sentences. We extract the impugned order in full:
These twenty four cases pertain to R.T.A., Tezpur which authority upon due detection of offences levied fine of different amounts on each of the operators. Hence these appeals.
2. We have carefully gone through the record and heard the parties.
3. We do not find any material substance to interfere with the decision arrived at by the RTA concerned.
We, therefore, decide to dismiss all the twenty four appeals.
In the result the appeals are disallowed. Send back the records to the R.T.A. concerned.
2. Proceedings under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short 'the Act', were drawn up against the appellants by the Regional Transport Authority, Tezpur Region, Tezpur, for violating the conditions of their permits. The petitioners showed cause, produced all the relevant documents. The petitioners were directed to pay composite fees within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice in lieu of suspension of their road permits for a period of one month. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred appeals against the order to the learned Tribunal under Section 64 of 'the Act' challenging the validity of the order and it is stated that various contentions were raised touching questions of law and facts. It has been complained that not a single point has been touched by the learned Tribunal in rendering the order. The most question which has been posed before us is 'Whether the impugned order is 'a decision' in accordance with the provisions of Section 64(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939'.
3. We have heard Shri Das for the petitioners and Shri P. Prasad, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam. A perusal of Section 64 of 'the Act' makes it clear that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal constituted under 'the Act' has the power to hear and dispose of appeals. The appellant is required to be given an opportunity of being heard. There is finality of the 'decision' so rendered. A decision is a determination reached by an authority after consideration of the facts and the law. The determination so made by the Tribunal is judicial or at least quasi-judicial in nature. The impugned order is just an 'opinion' and it is not a decision. While dealing with the nature of the power of the appellate authority, a Division Bench of this Court, of course in a different context, observed that reasons must be given in a decision of the appellate authority acting under Section 64 of the Act, vide Dhananjoy v. Chairman, Appellate Authority AIR 1961 Assam 56. The decision was rendered on the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commission Hill Division AIR 1957 SC 39. In Gurdas Paul and Rajkumar Saraf v. State of Assam 1985 (1) GLR 6, a Division Bench of this Court quashed a similar order and remitted the appeals for disposal by the Tribunal in accordance with law. The decision of the appellate authority is final. In law the decision almost amounts to a decree of the Civil Court. Such high is the responsibility of the appellate authority and there should be some minimum obligation on it to dispose of an appeal in accordance with the well known norms applicable for disposal of appeals. The appellate authority has the trappings of the Court. It is, therefore, essential that the well-known norm of giving reasons for the decision must be followed by the appellate authority. Although, the order of the appellate authority is final yet if the order happens to be a 'purported order' and not a 'real order' in that it is not rendered in accordance with the norms applicable to such appellate authorities, the decision may amount to a 'purported decision' and not a 'real decision'. In short, if the appellate authority renders a 'purported decision' and fails to render a 'real decision' it is liable to be quashed by this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution and direct the appellate authority to hear the appeal in accordance with law. The impugned order is a purported decision as it is not a decision but a mere expression of opinion. There is no finding. Accordingly, the decision is quashed and the appellate authority is directed to rehear the appeals after serving notice on the petitioners. Ail the contentions raised by the petitioners must be dealt with by the appellate authority. The order must be reasoned one. There must be indication of the application of mind by the Tribunal to the facts of the case. It may be stated here that Mr. P. Prasad, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam fairly conceded that for quick disposal of the appeals the petition may be allowed and the matter may be remitted back to the appellate court. We appreciate the stance taken by learned Senior Government Advocate.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we accept the petition set aside the impugned order and direct the appellate authority to re-hear the appeals in accordance with and directions contained hereinabove We hope that the appeals shall be disposed of expeditiously. We make no order as to costs.