Dismissed

S.Sreenivas v. TheAPSRTC.

Telangana HC4 Sept 2024WP/32580/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner claimed payment for increased HSD oil rates under a bus hire agreement. The respondent denied the claim alleging non-compliance and limitation. The court held that due to disputed questions of fact and the availability of civil court remedies, it declined to exercise writ jurisdiction.

What the court decided

AI extract

S.Sreenivas Vs TheAPSRTC. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 32580 OF 2010

¶7

Between:

¶8

S.Sreenivas, S/o Janaiah H-No.9-135 Seetharampuram, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 TheAPSRTC., Rep.byits V.C cum MD. RTC Cross Road,^Hyderabad 2. TheRegional Manager, APSRTC., Khammam Khammam^District 3 The Depot Managei, APSRTC., KhammamDepot Khammam^District

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ order or direction more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the^{nature of} I Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned^{proceedingsNo-01/259(15)/2010-} RM/KMM, dt. 23-08-2010 of the 2nd respondent^{in rejectingthe petitionerclaim} for payment of the amounts towards increased/^{hiked rates of HSD Oil for the} petitioner bus bearing No. AP 24 U 4665^plied in the route from^kmm-vallabi/ Matlaram as per Clause^(Vi) of the Hire Agreement.,^{as illegal,arbitrary, voilative} of article 14,19 and 300-4 of constitution of^{lndia and consequentlyset asidethe} same with a consequential direction to the^{respondents to pay the said increased} / hiked rates of HSD Oil.

¶14

cot^{ll^}

¶15

I.A. NO: 1 OJ 201O|WPMP. NO: 41414OF 2010l.

¶16

Petition under Sectron^'151 CPC praying that in the circ tmstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to drrect the responde,rts to pay the amounts towards increased/ hiked rates of HSD Oil to the petitroner for the bus bearing No AP 24 U 4995 plied in the route from Kmm-Vallabi/ Mallaram as per clause (vi) of the Hire Agreement by suspending the impugned proceedings No.01/259(1ii)i2010-RM/KMM, dt. 23-08-2010 of thr: 2nd respondent

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. PONAMPELLI RAVI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

HON,BLE^{MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA} WR TP IT N o 2 F 1

¶21

o DE

¶22

Heard Sri^{Ponampelli Ravi'learnedcounsel} appearing^{on behalf of the petit'oner and Sri Gaddam} Srinivas,^{learnedstandingCounsel for TSRTC'appearing} on behalf^{of resPondent Nos'1 to 3'}

¶23

2 The^{petitionerapproachedthe Court seeking prayer} as under:

¶24

"...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.oB.20l0ofthe2ndrespondentinrejectingthepetitioner 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 Constitutionof India} and consequently^{set aside the samewith a consequential} pay the^said

¶25

direction^{to theresPondentsto} increased/hiked^{rates of HSD Oil'' andpass such other} order or^{orders as this Hon'ble Courtmay deem fit and} proper in the^{interestof justice""}

¶26

The case^{of the petltioner in brief is that' the impugned} proceedings^{No.0U259(15)/2010-RM/KMM' dated 23'08'2010 of}

¶27

¶28

¶29

--- \ '=+'*Esp:
\ i?'i ?'-

¶30

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 Km m-Vallabi/Mallaram as per clause 4 (vi) of the Hire Agreement, is illegal and arbitrary and aggrieved Lry the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶31

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/d ecrea se, 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

¶32

¶33

"',1.- ' :'
I

¶34

petitioner is entitled for amounts^{which are due to be paidby the} respondent-CorPoration.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing^{on behalf of the petitioner} specifically disputes^{the three contentionsput-forthby the} learned counsel appearing^{on behalf of the respondentsand} contends that the^{petitioner is entitled for all the due amounts} from the respondent-Corporation^{as pleadedin 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.

¶36

PER USED THE^RECORD:

¶37

6 Th cou ter ffidavit filed on behalf of the 7 res onde ts^an an oarticular Daraoraoh os.3, 4.5.6 an Soft^{he saidcoun} r affidavit i extra^{ctedhereuner:} *3. It is submitted that the corporation has entered into^{an agreement Hlring of Bus No'AP 24-U-4995} for the^{periodfrom 26.05.2001 to 25'05'2004@Rs'B'4Bps} (Rs. Eight and forty^{eight paiseonly) for K'M',operated} towards Hire^{charges. As per the agreement clause no'4-} (vi) it is agreed to^{revise the Hire Tariff wheneverthe price} of Diesel^{Oil is revised.}

f,i

It is submitted that the Corporation has paid the amounts in time as and when the bills wr:re 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 (lontention of the petitioner that the revised hike of HSD rates were not implemented in accordance with the circular:; is not true. The petitioner has adopted his own HSD hikers and filed a calculation sheet and claiming in accordance with that sheet is not proper and contrary to the ltolicy of the corporation. The increased/ hiked rates of HSD oil were made to him from time to time ,arithout any ba cklog/a rrea rs. Hence there is no amounts clue to him by the Corporation.

¶42

It is submitted that the w.p.No.1657g of 2010 came-up for hearing on 29.11.2010 and the same was dismissed. The payments made to the p€rtitioner were communicated vide proceedings No.01/259( L5)/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 increa:;ed. There is no payment of difference of HSD Oil price is pending at A. P.S. R.T.C.

¶43

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

¶44

\ I l I

¶45

w
,,. ,,/
,/,,
.t,'
//

¶46

)

¶47

furnlshed^{in lines of the contract' In the event of any} disputes^{pertainlng to contract the petitioner is entitled to} invoke^{the jurisdictionof civil court for the disputed facts'}

¶48

It is submitted^{that the petitionerhas to make} and submit^{his bills at the end of the month and bills were} being settled.^{Petitionerat no point of time raised the} SamehiscontractWaStillyear2004.Afterlapsof5years he cannot^{claim as it is barred by limitation'}

¶49

It^{is submitted that the writ petition filed by} the petitioner is devoid^{of merit and lacks jurisdiction'} barred^{bY limitation'} The claim of the Petitioner^ls The^{proceedingsof the Regional Manageris sustentative to} show that^{entire amounts due are cleared 'There is no} violation of^{Art. 14, 16 and 300-4 of Constitution of India} which warrants^{any interferenceof thisHon'bleCourt} In view^{of the} under Art.^{226 of Constitutionof India'} above^{the writ petitionis liable for dismissal'"}

¶50

A bare^{perusal of the avermentsmade in the counter} affidavit^{filed on behalf of the respondents(referred to and} extracted^{above) clearlyindicatesthat the specificstand of the} respondent-Corporation^{is that there are no arrearspayable to} the^{petitioner regardingHSD increased/decreasedand that the} regular bills^{theamount forwhich thepetitioneris} applicable/eligible^{had been paid as per the guidelines issued by}

¶51

¶52

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 tirne on HSD increased/decreased.

¶53

Article 18 schedu!eoft e Limitation Act, 1963is

¶54

extracted hereu nder:

¶55

Description ofsuit	Periodof limitation	be instorun Time from which period
18.Forthepriceof workdonebythe plaintiff for the	Threeyears	Whenthe workis done.
defendantat his
request, where notime
hasbeenfixedfor
a ment.

¶56

It is the specific case of the respondents that the petitioner's claim is barred by limitation as per Arti,:le 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (referred to and extracted above).

¶57

1(). The observations of the Apex Court in judgment dated 2O.O4.2021 reported in (2021) 6 SCC t7t in M/s. Radhakrishnan Industries Vs, State of Himachal pradesh, which referred to Whirlpool Corporation Vs, Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (199g) g SCC 1 and the said view had been reiterated in a recent fult bench judgment

¶58

¶59

reported ,n^{2O2L SCC OnlineSC 8O1 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^{presenceof an alternate remedy had been} summarized^{in the said Judgmentat paragraph No'28 and} the same^is extracted^hereunder:

¶60

"28. The^{principles of law which emerge are that:}

¶61

(i) The power under Article^{226 of the Constitutionto issue} wiits can be exercised^{not only for the enforcementof} fundamental rights,^{but for any other purpose as well;}

¶62

(ii) The ioh C urt has the discretion not to en rtain writ etition One the restrict^ons la n ft Hi u a effective Iterna rem dv is available to the aoqrleved oerson; (iii) Exceptions to the rule^o f alternate remedy^{arise where} n filed for the enforcement^{of a} (a) the writ Petition has bee fundamental right Protected by Part III of^{the Constitution;} ion of the PrinciPles^{of natural} (b) there has been a^violat justice; (c) the order or Proceedings are^{whollY without} jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation^{is challenged;}

¶63

(iv) An alternate remedy^{by itselfdoes} -not^{divest the High} ior.t of its^{powers under Article 226 of the Constitutionin} an appropriate^{case though ordinarily, a writ petition} should not be^{entertained when an efficacious alternate} remedy is^{providedbY law;}

¶64

(v) When a right is created^{by a statute, whichitself} irlscribes^{the remedy or procedurefor enforcing the right} or liability,^{resort mustbe had to that particular statutory} remedy before^{invokingthe discretionary remedyunder} Afticle 226 of the^{Constitution.This rule of exhaustion of}

+:r ir,rⁱ '

**1 :,iF ;i---

statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and

¶69

(vi) In ca ses where there a re disouted ouestions of fact, the Hiqh Cou rt mav de ide to decline i u risd iction in a writ ition. 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 wit.h.,.

¶70

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.

¶71

L2. A bare perusal of the record clearty indacates that the date of agreement is 26.O5.2OO1 entered into between the petitioner and respondent-Corporation and the period of agreement concluded on 2S.O5.2O04 and the representations of the petitioner were made on 12.09.2005, 28.O9.2OO5 and 14.06.2010 and the writ petition had been filed in the year 2O1O. In view of the fact that disputed questaons 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 entiUed for any payment

¶72

¶73

I I

¶74

of dues, this Court^{opines that in view of the law laid} down by the^{Hon'ble Apex Court (referred toand} extracted above)^{the same cannot be gone into under} Article 226 of the constitution^{of India.}

¶75

Takinq into consideration:

¶76

(a) The aforesaad facts and^{circumstances of the case}

¶77

(b) The averments made^{in the counter affidavit filed on} behalf of the^{respondents(referred to and extracted}

¶78

above),

¶79

¶80

(d) Duly considering the^{view and the law laid downby} the Hon'ble Apex^{Court in the judgment referred to and}

¶81

extracted above,

¶82

(e) without going into^{themerits of therival} contentions^{put-forthby both the learned counselon} record,

¶83

the Writ Petition^{is disposed off, giving liberty to the} petitioner to^pursue the^{remedies as are availableunder} law for recovery^{ofdues to the petitioner from the} respondent^{Corporation,since this Court decidesto}

'9f.

H'if ii: :.'

.r:e'1

a.-.

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.

¶90

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ^petition shall also stand closed. ,t t

¶91

SD/- N.CHANDRA^SEKHA o ASSISTANT^R GI RAR //TRUE^COPY// SECTION FICER

¶92

To,

¶93

1 2 3 ffi 3 3^{lS 35I 8fJffii Eh\l'M^"J'(tt'?6["+3E Y3i to P u c ]} 3 Two CD^CoPies

¶94

BM tt pr-

¶95

¶96