IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) C.W.P. No. 4906 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 25.04.2008 Nirpal Singh .... PETITIONER Versus The State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS (2) C.W.P. No. 9080 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 25.04.2008 Mata Raghbir Kaur Bus Service (Regd.) Patiala .... PETITIONER Versus The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS (3) C.W.P. No. 11918 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 25.04.2008 M/s Gobindgarh Bus Service (Regd.), Gobindgarh .... PETITIONER Versus The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG CWP No. 4906 of 2007 -2- Present: Mr. Ashu M. Punchhi, Advocate, for the petitioner ( in CWP No. 4906 of 2007) Mr. B.S. Sudan, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No. 9080 of 2007) Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No. 11918 of 2007) Mr. N.D.S. Mann, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2 (in all the three CWPs) Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate, for PRTC-respondent No.4 in CWP No. 4906 and respondent No.3 in CWPs No. 9080 & 11918 of 2007) * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 4906, 9080 and 11918 of 2007, which are arising from a common order dated 23.1.2007, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the STAT'). In these three petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 1.3.2006, passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, exercising the powers of Regional Transport Authority, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as `the RTA'), denying the grant of stage carriage permits to the petitioners on Patiala-Jalandhar via Nandpur Kesho, Sirhind, Khanna, Ludhiana, Phillaur and Phagwara route (hereinafter referred to as `the route in question'), as well as the order dated 23.1.2007, passed by the STAT, CWP No. 4906 of 2007 -3- whereby the order of the RTA has been slightly modified and one stage carriage permit with one return trip daily on the route in question granted in favour of Amandeep Singh has been set aside and the same has been granted in favour of the Patiala Motorways Cooperative Transport Society Limited, Patiala (respondent No.3 in CWP No. 4906 of 2007). We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the writ petition as well as the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents. In the present case, the RTA, with a view to provide more direct services to the travelling public on the route in question, invited applications for grant of two stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily on the route in question, vide notice dated 22.3.2005, published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh. The route in question is 162 Kms. in single length, the major portion of which falls on National Highway. Therefore, as per the provisions of the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990, the mileage on the route is to be shared by the State Transport Undertakings (hereinafter referred to as `the STUs') and the private operators in the ratio of 75:25. Consequently, one permit each was decided to be granted in favour of the STU and the private operator, who was new entrant. The RTA, while taking into consideration the merits and de- merits of all the eligible applicants, vide its order dated 1.3.2006 granted one permit in favour of the General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport CWP No. 4906 of 2007 -4- Corporation, Patiala, a STU, and one permit in favour of Amandeep Singh son of Jasbir Singh. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, 13 appeals were filed before the STAT by various unsuccessful applicants, including the present petitioners. After hearing the concerned parties, the STAT has set aside the grant of permit in favour of Amandeep Singh and after considering the merits of the other eligible applicants, who filed the appeal, granted the said permit in favour of respondent No.3 Society, by coming to the conclusion that it is more suitable applicant. The aforesaid order of the STAT has been challenged in these writ petitions. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier by filing writ petition before this Court, the impugned order was challenged by Amandeep Singh, in whose favour the permit was granted by the RTA. The said writ petition was dismissed and the order of the STAT was upheld. It has also been informed by counsel for the petitioners that SLP filed by the said Amandeep Singh against the decision of this Court has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Now, in the present writ petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners have raised only one argument that respondent No.3 Society, to whom the permit has been granted by the STAT by considering it to be a new entrant, was not eligible for the grant of permit as the said Society cannot be treated to be a new entrant. It is the case of the petitioners that CWP No. 4906 of 2007 -5- though respondent No.3 Society is a registered Co-operative Society under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and is having a separate legal entity, but one of its Members/Manager is a partner in a firm, which is having a stage carriage permit. Therefore, keeping in view this fact, respondent No.3 Society cannot be considered to be a new entrant and was not eligible for grant of stage carriage permit. However, in support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners could not cite any judgment. After hearing counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. In our opinion, the legal status of a Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or a Society, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, is different than the legal status of a partnership firm. Undisputedly, respondent No.3, being a registered Society under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, is having a separate legal entity and is a juristic person. Therefore, in our opinion, merely because one of the members/Manager of the said Society is a partner of a firm, which is having a stage carriage permit, will have no consequence, as far as the legal status of respondent No.3 Society is concerned, because the status of a member vis-a-vis the registered Co-operative Society is different and only on the basis of the said fact, it cannot be said that respondent No.3 Society is not a new entrant, when admittedly the Society is not having any stage carriage permit, except the one which has now been granted by the STAT. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity CWP No. 4906 of 2007 -6- in the impugned order passed by the STAT and the same does not require any interference by this Court. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE April 25, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE