Disposed

S. Sreenivas v. The Apsrtc

Telangana HC4 Sept 2024WP/644/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding the petitioner's claim for HSD oil dues. The Court directed the petitioner to pursue available statutory remedies for recovery of dues, noting the presence of factual disputes and an alternate remedy.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed off without costs; liberty granted to petitioner to pursue alternate remedies for recovery of dues.

S. Sreenivas Vs The Apsrtc — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

132521

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEI,IBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 644 OF 2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

S Sreenivas, W/o. S. Janaiah, aged 38 years, R/o. H.No.9-135, Seetharampuram, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice Chairman/ Managing Director, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Regional Managar, APSRTC, Khammam, Khammam District. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Khammam

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Anicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned^proceedings No.01/259(1 5)/2010RMiKhammam dated 28.08.2010 of the 2nd respondent rejecting the^petitioners 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-,4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set astde the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the Rs. 13,42,325/- with interest at the^{rate of} 12o/o^per annum and grant costs of the proceedings

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 773 O F 2015)

¶17

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled rn support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith^pay the amounts towards^{increased/ hiked} rates HSD oil for the petitioner bus bearing No.AP 24 U 4464^plied on the^route

¶18

Khammam - Pangidi as per clause 4 sub-clause 6 of hrre agreement dated 17 05 2001 by suspending the operation of the tmpugned order proceedings No.o1/259 (15)12010 RM/Khammam dated 28.08.20.10 of the 2nd respondent pending d sposal of the above writ petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PONAMPELLI RAVI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC)

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

¶24

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLT NANDA

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.644 OF 2015

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

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.l to 3.

¶28

The petitioner approached the Court seeking^prayer as under:

¶29

"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, oneⁱⁿ 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.13,42,325l-with} interest at the rate of L2o/o^per annum and^grant costs of the^proceedings and to^{pass such other order} or^ordersas this Hon'ble Court may deems fit^just and^proper in the circumstances of the case.^"

¶30

¶31

¶32

The case of the petitioner in brief is that, the impugned proceedings No.01/259(15)/2OtO _ RM /Khamn-am dated 28.08.2010 of respondent No.2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of the amounts towards incre:ased/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, 2OO5 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.

¶33

Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the petitioner is not entiUed for grant of relief as prayecl for in the present writ petition on the three grounds (i) All th€) payments made to the petitioner are in accordance to circular instructions issued by the Corporate OFFice from time to time on HSD increase/decrea 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 rimitation 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

¶34

¶35

1^..,-:-:

¶36

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.

¶37

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 wrlt 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.

¶38

PERUSED THE RECORDI

¶39

The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the resDondents and in oarticular DaraqraDh Nos.3, 4, 5,7 and 8 of the said counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:

¶40

"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

¶41

¶42

difference of HSD hike rates. It is respectf.rlly that as and when HSD rates increased/decreased, on the very next bills, the a rrea rslrecovery were implemented duly audited by the Accounts Officer, Khammam.

¶43

It is respectfully submitted that thr: petitioner filed W.P.No.17534 of 2010 before the Hon,bte High Court with regard to the non-payment of increased rates of HSD Oil along with hire charges for the bus bearing r\o.Ap 24 U 4464 given on hire to the Andhra pradesh :jtate Road Transport corporation. The writ petition dispos3d with the direction to the respondent as per the Clause _,1(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 neqatived and order to that effect shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner within the said period.

¶44

In compliance with the orders of Hon,bte High Court in W.p.No.17534/2OlO, the 3.d responde,nt 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 3.d respondenl confirmed that due to price hike of HSD Oil, the deference amounts were pa id to the owner. The payments made to the petitioner were in accordance with circu la r ilstructions issued by Corporate Officer from time to timc to diesel

¶45

¶46

¶47

hike. In compliance with the^{orders ofHon'ble} High Court, the respondent^{given reply vide reply} dated OL /259(t5)t0-RM-KM M dated^28.08.2010.

¶48

It is respectFully submitted that^{as and when} the HSD price increased/decreased,^{the CorporateOffice} has communicated their sanctions to^{implementthe rates} with the retrospective effect^{in the current month bills. If} there is any deviation/difference^{inpayment,the} contractor would have raised^{objection for paymentof HSD} increased/decreased immediately.^{The implementationof} increased/decreased HSD rate^{is applicableto all the hire} bus owners in the State but^{not specialfor the petitioner} alone. The petitioner has^{raiseddifferentdisputesfor} payment of HSD rates after expiry of^{contract period.}

¶49

8 It is resoectf llv subm itted that the p ioner's^p lea was examined^andinformed him that here are o arrears Davable him reqa rdinq HSD i ncreased /decrease d. rt is resDe ullv submitted that the reoular bills e amount for whi h thev a re aoolic^{able/eliible we} oaid a Der the uidelines ssued bv the CorDo ate^Officedulv audi d bv the Accounts Officer,^Kammam.Itas subm itted that ll the Dav ents were made to them rna rda nce with circular instr^ctionsbv the CorD rate offi^e trom time to trme onH SD rnc se /decre se. dulv ud ited the Accou nts Offic r Khammam and^{Deot Manaor} Khamma mls

¶50

¶51

edth th el to t D titioner. "

¶52

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 sr_and of the respond en t- Co rpora tion is that there are no arrears payable to the petitioner regarding HSD increased/decreased arrd that the regular bills the amount for which the petitioner are applicable/eligible had been paid as per the guideline; 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.

¶53

I A le 18 he le of the Limitation Act. 1963 is e ra ed hereund r:

¶54

Description ofsuit 18.Forthepriceof workdonebythe plaintiff for the	Periodof limitation Three years	Time from whichperiod instorun Whenthe worllis done.
defendantat his
request, where notime
hasbeenfixedfor a ment.

¶55

¶56

It is the specific case of the^{respondents thatthe} petitioner's claim is barred by limitation as^per Article¹⁸ of^the Limitation Act, 1963^{(referred to and extracted above).}

¶57

The observations of the Apex^{Court in judgment} dated 20.04.2021 reported^{in (2O21) 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 an a recent full^{bench judgment} reported in 2O2t 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:

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

ll Hi h h s creti n tt ente lnaw t Detation. One of the restricti^ons Dla on the Dower of the Hioh^{Court is where an} effe ive alter ate remedvtsa vaila hle to the aqorieved oerson:

¶61

i&'taI

¶62

¶63

(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 violaticn oF the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or p-oceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the rrires of a legislation is challenged;

¶64

!v)^{An alternate remedy by itself does not dives;t the High} Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Con stitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an eFficacious; alternate remedy is provided by law;

¶65

(v) When a right is created by a statute, w,hich itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory lemedy^{before invokingthe discretionary remedy undei} Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exftaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and

¶66

(vi) fn cases here there are disDuted ou estion of fa the Hiqh Court mav decide tod line lurt d iction tnaw rit oeti ron. However, ii the High Court is objectively of the view that the nat,:re of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ .1'Jrisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with. "

¶67

The present case falls under ctause (ii) and first part of clause (vi) as well of the Judgment of the Apex Court referred to and extracted above.

¶68

L2. A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that the date of agreement is 12.O5.20O1 entered into between the petitioner and respondent-Corporation and the period of

agreement concluded on 11.05.2005 and the

¶73

representation of the^{petitionerwas made on 12.09.2O05} and the writ^petition had been^{filed in the year 2O15.} 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^{petationer 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.

¶74

13. Takin into consid ration:

¶75

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

¶76

(b) The averments made in the counter^{affidavit filed on} behalf of the respondents,

¶77

¶78

(d) Duty consideriqg the view and the taw^{laid downby} the Hon'ble Apex Cburt in the^{judgment referred to and}

¶79

extracted above,

¶80

¶81

(e) Without going into the merits of the rival contentaons put forth by both the learned counsel on record,

¶82

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.

¶83

As a sequel, the miscellaneous pet.itions, if

¶84

any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.

¶85

¶86

//TRUE COPY//

¶87

SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTFAR MiW

¶88

SECTION OFFICER

¶89