Disposed

Smt. a. Niveditha, W/o. Muralidhar Rao v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation rep. By

Telangana HC18 Sept 2024WP/41001/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bus owner sought payment of hire charges on actual operational distance on the Jangoan-Suryapet route. Both sides agreed the issue was covered by two earlier orders of this Court. The writ petition was disposed of directing respondents to consider the petitioner's representations after personal hearing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. a. Niveditha, W/o. Muralidhar Rao Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132s21

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE^{EIGHTEENTH DAY OFSEPTETV1BER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITI^{ON NO:41 001 0F 2015}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. A. Niveditha,^{W/o. MuralidharRao,aged.32 years,occ Hire Bus owner} of AP 36 X^{a762 visnJoiiV)' F;i;iti'th,Mindal'Waransal District'}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

' The Telangana^{State Road Transport,Cglq-olllonrep' By' its Joint Managing} Director, Bus^{Bhavan, MusheerabadHyderaDao'}

¶12

z. iiiJiilgio"ir^{rr,ranagli,ils'n'ib', wi'*ngal Reoion' waranqal'} 3. The Depot^{Mrnug"r]?.sliiT.C::;;dil 6epot iansoan' wdrangal District'}

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under^{Article226 of the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Courtmay be} pleasedtoissueaWrit,OrderorDirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof Mandamusdeclaringtheactionoftherespondentsinnotpayingthehirecharges tothepetitionerontheactualoperationaldistanceforoperatingthepetitioners bus bearing^{no. AP 36 x4762 on the routeJangoan-suryapetfrom 2007} onwards^{as arrived at duringthe joint survey conductedby the respondentson} 08.11.2012^{as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory' in violationof principles of natural} justice, fair play and^{Article 1 4, 16 and Article19(1 )(g) of Constitutionof lndia} consequently^{direct the respondentsto pay hire charges to the petitioner bus} bearing^{No. AP 36 X4762on the actual operationaldistance on the route} Jangoan^{- Suryapetwitharrears due from 2008onwards}

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2o1s(WPMP. NO: 52923 OF 2015)

¶16

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 1g.12.2014 and 09.04.2015 made by the petitioner forthwith

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. V. CHALAPATHI RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.41OOl oF 2015

¶22

ORD ER:

¶23

Heard Sri D. v. Chalapathi Rao, learned^counset appearing on behalf of the^{petitioner and Sri Gaddam} Srinivas, learned Standing^{CounselforTSRTC,} appearing on behalf of respondent^{Nos.1to 3.}

¶24

The petitioner approached the^{Court seeking} prayer as under:

¶25

"...to issue a writ, order or direction^{more particularly} one in the nature of Mandamus^{declaringthe action} of the respondents in^{not payingthe hire charges to} the petitioner on the actual^{operational distance for} operating the^petitioner's bus^{bearing No.AP36 X} 4762 on the route Jangoan -^{Suryapetfrom 2007} onwards as arrived at during^{the joint survey} conducted by the respondents on 08.11.2012^as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, in^violationof principles of natural^justice, fair^play and Articles^14, 16 and Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of^Indiaand consequently direct the^{respondents to pay hire} charges to the petitioner bus^{bearing No.AP 36 X} 47 62 on the actual operational^{distance on the route} Jangoan - Sur:yapet with arrears due^from2008

2 wP 41001 20 ts

l I

::,,,

onwards and may pass other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit ancl proper in the circumstances of the ca se.,,

¶30

When the matter is taken up fcrr hearing, it ls represented by both the learned counsel appeanng on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for TS RTC, appearinq on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 01.08.2024 passed in W.p.No.409B7 of 2015 and the order, dated 14.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.40994 of 2O7S hence, the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the order of this Court dated 01.08.202.4 passed in W.p.No.409B7 of 201-5 and the order, dated 14.08.2024 passed in W.p.No.40994 of zOtS.

¶31

Taking into consideration the submission made by both the learned counsel on record, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein to consider the petitioner,s representations dated IA.L2,ZOL4 and O9.o4.2O15 pertaining to payment of hire charges to the petitioner on the actuat operationar distance for operating the petitioner,s bus bearing No. AP 36 X 4762 on the route Jangoan _ Suryapet from

¶32

) wP 41001 2015

¶33

2OO7 onwards as arrived at during^{the jointsurvey} conducted by Ih" respondents^{on08.11.2012in} accordance to law,^{in conformity with the principlesof} natural^justice by^{giving an opportunityof personal} hearing to the^{petitioner within a period of three (3)} weeks from the date of^{receiptof a copy of this order} and duly communicate^{the decisionto the petitioner'}

¶34

However, there sha!!^{be no order as to costs.}

¶35

As a sequel, the^{miscellaneous petitions,} if

¶36

any,^pending in the^{Writ Petition shall alsostand closed'}

¶37

To,

¶38

SD/-K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER

¶39

l The Joint Manaoino Director,.Terangana state Road rransport corporation ^^{Bus Bhavan, MrJsh"eerabad Hvo-"iJ6rO.} 2. The Regional Manager, 1.-S5.-fC., Wirangal Reoion, Warangal. 3. The Depot Manager, T.S R LQ.]ilgoa;6"poijrngoun, Waranqat u'|JL..uLDistrict 1. 9n"^{cc to sRt. b v cunupRril} ffio ffi;5;t"t6pubi'"'u"vq'| 5. one cc to sRr. GADDAM sRtNtvAS, SiFoHiShlclo,pucl 6. Two CD Copies

BM KKS

l i

HIGH COURT

DATED:18 10912024

): .,.-i-- rr !il ./..
Ii' :! 1t FEB 7tz5 (,>z I
I
I
'l:
:-:arrH ,

¶47

ORDER

¶48

WP.No.41001 of 2015

¶49

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

4
4
rt
t 7 /,1'

Smt. a. Niveditha, W/o. Muralidhar Rao v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation rep. By

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. a. Niveditha, W/o. Muralidhar Rao v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation rep. By

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Gade Venkata Narsamma Vs The State of Telangana

Vadla Jeetha Chary Vs The State of Telangana represented by its Secretary

Manasarawor Ispat India Pvt., Ltd., (S.C.MBN699) Vs The Telangana State, Tansco

M.Ajay and 19 Others, Vs Prl.Secy.. Social Welafare Dept., Hyd., and 6 Others

Mikkineni Naga Mani, Vs The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal