Judgment :- 1. Casting vote is not a novel feature in this State. The effect of an omission to exercise the casting vote, in the context of R.157 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961, arises for consideration in this writ petition. The situation, that way, is novel. 2. The factual area is not controversial. Pursuant to a direction of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the Regional Transport Authority had to consider the question of a grant of a regular permit on a route. That question was taken up on 19-4-1986. The agenda for the meeting included two matters: (a) perusal of the judgment of the S.T.A.T., and (b) the consideration of the applications received for the grant of the permit. On the first, the R.T.A. noted: "Perused"; and on the second, "deferred till the next meeting for report of D.T.C." The next meeting was held on 17-5-1986. Now there is no controversy about the voting pattern, (The word Thomas, Babu as given in the copy of the proceedings filed in the writ petition conveyed an erroneous impression of there being two persons Thomas and Babu. Thomas Babu, it is agreed, is a single person.) Ten members were present in the meeting, inclusive of the Chairman. A question whether an enquiry should be conducted about the genuineness of the driving licence produced by the petitioner was considered. Five members voted in favour, and five against, the proposal. There was an equality of votes. R.157 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961, has provided for such a contingency. It reads: "Decision of the Regional Transport Authority:- All questions which may come before the Regional Transport Authority at any meeting shall be decided by a majority of the Members present and voting at the meeting and in every case of equality of votes the Presiding Member shall have and exercise a second or casting vote." 3. The Chairman did not exercise the casting vote. There does not appear to be any scope for doubt or dispute on that question. Even with this factual situation, Ext. P4 proceedings, contained a directive "to issue notice". That was in relation to the disqualification referred to in R.30 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. (Here again the proceedings contain verbal and other errors which should have been avoided.) It is this directive that is challenged by the petitioner. 4. Even with this factual situation, Ext. P4 proceedings, contained a directive "to issue notice". That was in relation to the disqualification referred to in R.30 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. (Here again the proceedings contain verbal and other errors which should have been avoided.) It is this directive that is challenged by the petitioner. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted, pointedly and forcefully, that there is no decision taken, in the eventuality of an equality of votes and that, consequently, a directive to -issue of notice under R.30 is without jurisdiction. 5. It is unnecessary to refer to the signification of the term'casting vote', though counsel for the 2nd respondent referred to it by citing Jowitt's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edn., Page 293. A Chairman of a meeting, who is otherwise entitled to vote, is not disfranchised merely for the reason that he is the Chairman or selected as Chairman in the meeting in which he presides. The legal position in England was summed up by Cave, J. in Nell v. Longbottom, (1894) 1 Q.B. 767, as follows: "It is true that very often he does not vote until it has been ascertained that the other votes are equal; but, when that is the case, the chairman votes, not because he is chairman, and as such has a vote only in the case of an equal division among the other members of the meeting, but by reason of his right to vote as a duly qualified member of the meeting. When, as the result of the chairman's giving his vote, the numbers on either side become exactly equal, the common law appears to have provided no way out of the difficulty. The institution of a second or casting vote, as it is called, is the creature of the statute law introduced for the purpose of avoiding the deadlock which would otherwise ensue." Bland v. Buchanan, (1901) 2 K. B. 75, endorses many of the views expressed in Nell v. Longbottom supra. Parliament in England introduced necessary provisions to tide over the situations of such stalemate, in parish meetings, in Municipal Corporations and later, even in ordinary meetings. Situations will change from time to time depending upon the legal provisions in that regard. We have to examine the position as posed under R.157. Parliament in England introduced necessary provisions to tide over the situations of such stalemate, in parish meetings, in Municipal Corporations and later, even in ordinary meetings. Situations will change from time to time depending upon the legal provisions in that regard. We have to examine the position as posed under R.157. The legal position is that there will not be any decision unless there is an expressed majority to that effect. This is understandably so. The decision conveys a mental exercise, the evolution of an idea and a command for a particular course of action. A mere neutralisation of ideas is not sufficient. A positive and definite direction is indispensable, to connote or constitute a decision in accordance with law. The legal position has been neatly summarised by Shackleton as follows: "In the case of an equality of votes, a motion is not carried and is therefore effectively defeated " (See Shackle ton on The Law And Practice of Meetings, Seventh Edition, page 70.) That being so, in the present case, it cannot be posited that there was a decision of the R.T.A., as assumed under the impugned proceedings. 6. Counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the exercise of casting vote by the 2nd respondent could be assumed inasmuch as Ext. P4 proceedings visualise there being a decision and consequently the exercise of a casting vote by the Chairman. This is really putting an argument on its head, and a bad head at that. The register containing the proceedings of the meeting was made available to the Court. That is the best and primary evidence of the transactions of business at the meeting. Whether the Chairman exercised a casting vote or not must be found out with reference to the facts recorded therein. When there is nothing to indicate that a casting vote was in (act exercised by the Chairman, it is impossible to import such a fact by implication. Implication has got its limitations. A mere silence or a mere inaction cannot be transmuted into speech or action. That way, it cannot be assumed that the Chairman indicated a positive reaction on his side either. The result is that there is no positive decision as visualised by law. 7. The stage at which the matters stand now is one of an absence of a decision. That way, it cannot be assumed that the Chairman indicated a positive reaction on his side either. The result is that there is no positive decision as visualised by law. 7. The stage at which the matters stand now is one of an absence of a decision. A declaration to that effect is necessarily sufficient for granting reliefs to the petitioner. I, therefore, quash Ext. P4 proceedings to the extent it contains a direction for an enquiry under R.30 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. 8. In the light of the above decision, the matter has necessarily to go back to the R.T.A. It is the prayer of both parties that the matter should be discussed and decided upon at the earliest. Needless to add. when the matter goes again before the R.T.A., the presiding Officer will remind himself of the additional right which he has for the exercise of the second or the casting vote, in the eventuality of there being a repetition of the situation of equality of votes. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.