Telangana High Court
S.Sreenivas vs Theapsrtc., on 4 September, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.32580 OF 2010
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 order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned
proceedings No.01/259(15)/2010-RM/KMM, dated
23.08.2010 of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the petitioner
claim for payment of the amounts towards increased/hiked
rates of HSD Oil for the petitioner bus bearing No.AP 24 U
4995 plied in the route from Kmm-Vallabi/Mallaram as per
clause (vi) of the Hire Agreement, as illegal, arbitrary,
violative of Article 14, 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India
and consequently set aside the same with a consequential
direction to the respondents to pay the said
increased/hiked rates of HSD Oil., and pass such other
order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice.."
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that, the impugned
proceedings No.01/259(15)/2010-RM/KMM, dated 23.08.2010 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's bus bearing No.AP 24 U 4995 piled in the
route from Kmm-Vallabi/Mallaram as per clause 4 (vi) of the Hire
Agreement, 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, 6, 7
and 8 of the said counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:
"3. It is submitted that the corporation has
entered into an agreement Hiring of Bus No.AP 24-U-4995
for the period from 26.05.2001 to 25.05.2004 @Rs.8.48ps
(Rs. Eight and forty eight paise only) for K.M., operated
towards Hire charges. As per the agreement clause no.4-
(vi) it is agreed to revise the Hire Tariff whenever the price
of Diesel Oil is revised.
4. It is submitted that the Corporation has paid
the amounts in time as and when the bills were raised by
the petitioner taking into consideration the agreement and
as and when the HSD prices were revised basing on the
circular instructions of the corporation. The contention of
the petitioner that the revised hike of HSD rates were not
implemented in accordance with the circulars is not true.
The petitioner has adopted his own HSD hikes and filed a
calculation sheet and claiming in accordance with that
sheet is not proper and contrary to the policy of the
corporation. The increased/ hiked rates of HSD oil were
made to him from time to time without any
backlog/arrears. Hence there is no amounts due to him by
the Corporation.
5. It is submitted that the W.P.No.16579 of 2010
came-up for hearing on 29.11.2010 and the same was
dismissed. The payments made to the petitioner were
communicated vide proceedings No.01/259(15)/2010-RM-
KMM, dated 23.08.2010 is stands good. As per the
proceedings and agreement clause No.4 (vi) the payments
were already paid to him from time to time by increasing
Hire Charges whenever Diesel rate is increased. There is
no payment of difference of HSD Oil price is pending at
A.P.S.R.T.C.
6. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner
is to specific perform the clause of the contract which the
corporation has already substantiated the facts and
furnished in lines of the contract. In the event of any
disputes pertaining to contract the petitioner is entitled to
invoke the jurisdiction of civil court for the disputed facts.
7. It is submitted that the petitioner has to make
and submit his bills at the end of the month and bills were
being settled. Petitioner at no point of time raised the
same his contract was till year 2004. After laps of 5 years
he cannot claim as it is barred by limitation.
8. It is submitted that the writ petition filed by
the petitioner is devoid of merit and lacks jurisdiction.
The claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation.
The proceedings of the Regional Manager is sustentative to
show that entire amounts due are cleared. There is no
violation of Art. 14, 16 and 300-A of Constitution of India
which warrants any interference of this Hon'ble Court
under Art. 226 of Constitution of India. In view of the
above the writ petition is liable for dismissal."
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 is
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 26.05.2001 entered into between the
petitioner and respondent-Corporation and the period of
agreement concluded on 25.05.2004 and the
representations of the petitioner were made on
12.09.2005, 28.09.2005 and 14.06.2010 and the writ
petition had been filed in the year 2010. 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 (referred to and extracted
above),
(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 the 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
