I. Balamani vs The Telangana Road Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2193 Tel

Item No.34



      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                   AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY


                           W.A.No.61 of 2021

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)


1.     The appellants/writ petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated

04.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4830 of

2020 praying inter alia for issuing directions to the respondents

authorities to increase the number, frequency, safety and availability

of city buses and explore the possibility of granting free public

transport buses on select routes as also in the Greater Hyderabad

Metropolitan Area. Further, the appellants/writ petitioners have

sought directions to the respondents to constitute a committee to

interact with the public to monitor improvement measures of the

governance of the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

(TSRTC).

2. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with

an observation that the same is not maintainable, as in the first

instance, the appellants/writ petitioners ought to have approached the

respondents authorities for relief by submitting a representation and

only if orders were not passed by the respondents or the

appellants/writ petitioners were aggrieved by the orders passed by the

respondents, should they have approached the court by filing a

petition. The other observation made in the impugned judgment is

that the court cannot interfere in policy matters relating to the number

of buses to be operated in particular areas and regulation thereof, as it

lies in the domain of the Executive.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants does not deny that no steps

were taken by his clients to first approach the respondents authorities

with a representation and raising a grievance personal to them. Even

otherwise, the issue of the number of buses to be operated, the routes

on which they ought to be operated etc., are all matters that fall in the

domain of the Executive and do not deserve interference by this court.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants states that he

may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal while reserving the

right of his clients to raise the grievance specific to them with the

respondent No.1/TSRTC.

5. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The present appeal is disposed

of as not pressed along with the pending applications, if any.

______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 23.07.2021 JSU