Telangana High Court
WP/27985/2007 of S.Srinivasulu Vs Andhra pradesh Road Transport Corporation rep.by its on 24 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 27985 of 2007 Between: S.Srinivasulu S/o.Janaiah R/o.H.No.9-135, Sitarampuram,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINIWRIT PETITION NO : 27985 of 2007
Between:
S.Srinivasulu S/o.Janaiah
R/o.H.No.9-135, Sitarampuram, Miryalaguda Nalgonda district
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 Andhra pradesh Road Transport Corporation rep.by its RegionalManager, Nalgonda,Nalgonda district 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kodad Depot, Kodad NalgondaDistrict
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order ordirection declaring the action of the respondents in reducing the hirecharges of the petitioner bus No.AP 24 U 4500 from 40 KM to 39.5 KMbetween Kodad -Khammam as illegal, and arbitrary, and issueconsequential direction to the respondents to release the difference hirecharges.
Counsel for the Petitioner : MR . D.KRISHNA MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondents : SMT. B.G.UMA DEVI
The Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No.27985 OF 2007
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER :
The petitioner herein is the owner of Bus bearing No. AP-24-U-4500 which was taken on hire by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) to ply on the notified route Khammam – Kodadunder the Agreement dated 7.5.2001. According to the petitioner, thedistance between Khammam and Kodad is 40 Kms. Since eight singletrips were made per day, he claimed hire charges for a total 320 Kms perday (40 x 8). However, the petitioner was paid only for 304 kms.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25179 of 2004 and thesame was disposed of by this Court by order dated 31.12.2004 with adirection to the Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioner and takean appropriate decision. Thereafter, a joint survey was conducted and theactual distance between Khammam and Kodad was found to be 40.2kms. In spite of the same, the Corporation paid the difference of hirecharges taking the distance between Khammam and Kodad as 39.5 kms.The said action of the respondents is under challenge in this writ petition.
It is contended by the petitioner that since the actual distancebetween Khammam and Kodad as found in the joint survey is 40.2 kms,the Corporation is not justified in paying the hire charges taking thedistance as 39.5 kms. It is also contended that since the Corporation iscollecting the ticket fare from the passengers for 40 Kms, the samedistance ought to have been taken into consideration for payment of hirecharges to the petitioner’s bus.
On behalf of the Corporation, a counter-affidavit is filed stating thatin the joint survey the route length between Kodad and Khammam wasfound as 39.52 kms after applying the correction factor as provided underthe Circular No.5/2001-MED, dated 5.3.2001 and accordingly the hirecharges were calculated.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perusedthe material on record.
It is vehemently contended by the petitioner that the Circular dated5.3.2001 has no application for ascertaining the charges payable to thehired buses. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Corporationcontended that the hire charges paid on the basis of the joint survey reportwhich was also signed by the petitioner was in accordance with law.
It is to be noted that as per the meter reading shown in the joint survey report dated 2.5.2005 the actual distance between Kodad andKhammam is 40.2 kms. The said fact has not been disputed by theCorporation. However, according to the Corporation, the correction factorhas to be applied in terms of the Circular dated 5.3.2001 and thus theroute length has come to 39.52 kms.
A reading of the Circular dated 5.3.2001 shows that having regardto the doubts expressed by the Depot Managers and the RegionalManagers on the accuracy of the meters fitted on vehicles and the inter-changeability of the meters from one vehicle to the other vehicle,clarifications were obtained from the vehicle manufacturers and after duedeliberations it was found that there may be difference upto 2.5 kmscompared to the actual distance of 100 kms covered as per the milestones. Accordingly, the correction factor was arrived at which shall bemultiplied with the distance found in the survey to decide the actual routelengths. Nothing could be placed before this Court by the petitioner toshow that the said procedure prescribed by the Corporation for arrivingthe correct route lengths is contrary to law or suffered from any technicalerror. Similarly, no case could be made out to show that the saidcorrection factor is not applicable for determining the hire charges for thevehicles hired by the Corporation. Even the agreement entered intobetween the petitioner and the Corporation was silent with regard toactual distance and it was only stipulated that the distance operated formaking payment will be reckoned from the appointed place of plying thevehicles and the Corporation shall pay the owner at the rate of Rs.8.48per kilometre operated towards hire charges. The agreement also did notprovide any different procedure for measuring the distance. In thecircumstances, I am unable to hold that the procedure followed by theCorporation in accordance with the Circular dated 5.3.2001 is eitherarbitrary or illegal.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Dt. 24.12.2008 gbs
_____________
G. ROHINI, J.