Telangana High Court
S. Sreenivas vs The Apsrtc, on 4 September, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.644 OF 2015
ORDER:
Heard Sri Ponampelli Ravi, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Gaddam
Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, appearing
on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer
as under:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned
proceedings No.01/259 (15) /2010 RM/Khammam dated
28.08.2010 of the 2nd respondent rejecting the petitioner's
claim to the tune of Rs.13,42,325/- and payment of the
same towards increased / hiked rates HSD oil for the
petitioner bus bearing No.AP 24 U 4464 plied on the route
Khammam - Pangidi as per clause 4 sub-clause 6 of hire
agreement dated 17.05.2001 as illegal, arbitrary, violative
of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and
consequently set aside the same with a consequential
direction to the respondents to pay the Rs.13,42,325/- with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum and grant costs of
the proceedings and to pass such other order or orders as
this Hon'ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the
circumstances of the case."
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that, the impugned
proceedings No.01/259(15)/2010 - RM /Khammam dated
28.08.2010 of respondent No.2 rejecting the claim of the
petitioner for payment of the amounts towards increased/hiked
rates of HSD oil of the petitioner bus bearing No.AP 24 4464
piled in the route from Khammam - Pangidi during the period of
May, 2001 to May, 2005 as per clause 4 (6) of hire agreement
dated 17.05.2001 is illegal and arbitrary and aggrieved by the
same, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel, appearing
on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the
petitioner is not entitled for grant of relief as prayed for in the
present writ petition on the three grounds (i) All the payments
made to the petitioner are in accordance to circular instructions
issued by the Corporate Office from time to time on HSD
increase/decrease, duly audited by the Accounts Officer,
Khammam and Depot Manager, Khammam, and there is no
amount pending against the petitioner. (ii) The plea of the
petitioner is barred by the limitation since the petitioner disputed
before this Court after lapse of five (5) years by filing the
present writ petition. (iii) The specific case of the respondents is
that the petitioner is not entitled for any amounts.
On the other hand the specific case of the petitioner is that the
petitioner is entitled for amounts which are due to be paid by the
respondent-Corporation.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
specifically disputes the three contentions put-forth by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and
contends that the petitioner is entitled for all the due amounts
from the respondent Corporation as pleaded in the present writ
petition and petitioner's case is not barred by limitation, and the
payments made to the petitioner are not as per circular
guidelines in force as on date.
PERUSED THE RECORD:
6. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondents and in particular paragraph Nos.3, 4, 5, 7 and
8 of the said counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:
"3. It is respectfully submitted that as per
Agreement of Clause 6, the revised rates of HSD were paid
to the hire bus owner through regular bills as and when
there is increase/hiked rates of HSD. There is no
representation received from the hire bus owner regarding
difference of HSD hike rates. It is respectfully that as
and when HSD rates increased/decreased, on the very
next bills, the arrears/recovery were implemented duly
audited by the Accounts Officer, Khammam.
4. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner
filed W.P.No.17534 of 2010 before the Hon'ble High Court
with regard to the non-payment of increased rates of HSD
Oil along with hire charges for the bus bearing No.AP 24 U
4464 given on hire to the Andhra Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation. The Writ Petition disposed with the
direction to the respondent as per the Clause -4(vi) of the
agreement and take a decision thereon. If the
respondents find justification in the petitioners claim they
shall pay the amount due to the petitioner within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of order.
If for any reason, the petitioners request is negatived and
order to that effect shall be passed and communicated to
the petitioner within the said period.
5. In compliance with the orders of Hon'ble High
Court in W.P.No.17534/2010, the 3rd respondent has re-
verified and confirmed that the payment of hire charges
were paid regularly without any delay duly pre audited by
Accounts Officer, Khammam. The 3rd respondent confirmed
that due to price hike of HSD Oil, the deference amounts
were paid to the owner. The payments made to the
petitioner were in accordance with circular instructions
issued by Corporate Officer from time to time to diesel
hike. In compliance with the orders of Hon'ble High
Court, the respondent given reply vide reply dated
O1/259(15)10-RM-KMM dated 28.08.2010.
7. It is respectfully submitted that as and when
the HSD price increased/decreased, the Corporate Office
has communicated their sanctions to implement the rates
with the retrospective effect in the current month bills. If
there is any deviation/difference in payment, the
contractor would have raised objection for payment of HSD
increased/decreased immediately. The implementation of
increased/decreased HSD rate is applicable to all the hire
bus owners in the State but not special for the petitioner
alone. The petitioner has raised different disputes for
payment of HSD rates after expiry of contract period.
8. It is respectfully submitted that the
petitioner's plea was examined and informed him
that there are no arrears payable to him regarding
HSD increased/decreased. It is respectfully
submitted that the regular bills the amount for
which they are applicable/eligible were paid as per
the guidelines issued by the Corporate Office duly
audited by the Accounts Officer, Khammam. It is
submitted that all the payments were made to them
in accordance with circular instructions by the
Corporate office from time to time on HSD
increase/decrease, duly audited by the Accounts
Officer, Khammam and Depot Manager, Khammam is
certified that there is no amount pending to the
petitioner."
7. A bare perusal of the averments made in the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and
extracted above) clearly indicates that the specific stand of the
respondent-Corporation is that there are no arrears payable to
the petitioner regarding HSD increased/decreased and that the
regular bills the amount for which the petitioner are
applicable/eligible had been paid as per the guidelines issued by
the Corporate Office duly audited by the Accounts Officer,
Khammam and in accordance with the circular instructions
issued by the Corporate Office from time to time on HSD
increased/decreased.
8. Article 18 schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 is
extracted hereunder:
Description of suit Period of Time from
limitation which period
begins to run
18. For the price of Three years When the work is
work done by the done.
plaintiff for the
defendant at his
request, where no time
has been fixed for
payment.
9. It is the specific case of the respondents that the
petitioner's claim is barred by limitation as per Article 18 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 (referred to and extracted above).
10. The observations of the Apex Court in judgment
dated 20.04.2021 reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 in M/s.
Radhakrishnan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,
which referred to Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of
Trade Marks reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 and the said view
had been reiterated in a recent full bench judgment
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 801 in "Magadh Sugar &
Energy Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others". The principles
governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High
Court in the presence of an alternate remedy had been
summarized in the said Judgment at paragraph No.28 and
the same is extracted hereunder:
"28. The principles of law which emerge are that:
(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue
writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of
fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to
entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions
placed on the power of the High Court is where an
effective alternate remedy is available to the
aggrieved person;
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where
(a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement
of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the
Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the
principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings
are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a
legislation is challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High
Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in
an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition
should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate
remedy is provided by law;
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself
prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right
or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory
remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of
statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and
discretion; and
(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of
fact, the High Court may decide to decline
jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High
Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the
controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction,
such a view would not readily be interfered with."
11. The present case falls under clause (ii) and first part
of clause (vi) as well of the Judgment of the Apex Court
referred to and extracted above.
12. A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that the
date of agreement is 12.05.2001 entered into between the
petitioner and respondent-Corporation and the period of
agreement concluded on 11.05.2005 and the
representation of the petitioner was made on 12.09.2005
and the writ petition had been filed in the year 2015.
In view of the fact that disputed questions of fact are
involved in the present writ petition pertaining to the
petitioner's entitlement for payment of dues by the
respondent-Corporation and the respondent-Corporation's
specific denial that the petitioner is not entitled for any
payment of dues, this Court opines that in view of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (referred to and
extracted above) the same cannot be gone into under
Article 226 of the constitution of India.
13. Taking into consideration:
(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case
(b) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondents,
(c) The submissions put forth by both the learned
counsel on record,
(d) Duly considering the view and the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment referred to and
extracted above,
(e) Without going into the merits of the rival
contentions put forth by both the learned counsel on
record,
the Writ Petition is disposed off, giving liberty to the
petitioner to pursue the remedies as are available under
law for recovery of dues to the petitioner from the
respondent Corporation, since this Court decides to
decline exercise of jurisdiction in the present case in view
of the disputed questions of facts involved in the present
case. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if
any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.
___________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Date: 04.09.2024
HFM
