IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8348 of 2004 Between: S. Satyananda Rao, Visakhapatnam. R/o. 47-9-2, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam - 530 016. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Estate Officer, A.P.S.R.T.C. Visakhapatnam District -530 016. 2 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Assistant Traffic Manager, Dwaraka Bus Station Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530 016. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to call for recordes relating to and in connection with the orders dated 26th September 2000 in E.C. No. 4 of 2000 on the ﬁle of the Court of Estate Oﬃcer, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam and conﬁrmed in A.S. 183 of 2000 dated 17-03-2004 on the ﬁle of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and quash the same as being bad in law, contrary to facts and evidence on record and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act 1968 by way of Writ, order or direction one more particurly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8348 of 2004 ORDER: M/s Visakha Computer Academy and Services Private Limited (VCA) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. In response to a tender notiﬁcation issued in December, 1995, by the Regional Manager of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), Visakhapatnam, the said company through the petitioner – Managing Director (MD), applied for allotment/lease of shops in RTC complex. Probably for the reason that their bid was more responsive by communication dated 22.02.1996, said company was informed that they were allotted shop Nos.34, 57 and 58 for licence fee of Rs.3,600/- per month for a period of four years. A deed of licence was also executed by VCA. During the period of licence the petitioner was MD of the company. It appears sometime thereafter the petitioner transferred share holdings and assets of the company along with licence to one Surya Rao. The petitioner ceased to be MD and Surya Rao used to pay the rents. First respondent initiated action under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 (the Act, for brevity) for recovery of rents/damages in a sum of Rs.52,769/- towards licence fee for the shops from April, 1999 to October, 1999 with interest at 36% per annum and Rs.24,175/- being electrical charges. The petitioner filed an explanation denying any such liability. He contended that the liability, if any, is on VCA and that he ceased to be MD. First respondent conducted enquiry. The petitioner was examined as a witness and he marked Exs.B1 to B3. APSRTC examined a witness and marked Exs.A1 to A18. On considering the evidence, ﬁrst respondent passed orders on 26.09.2000 directing the petitioner to pay the above mentioned amounts within ten days. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The same being A.S.No.183 of 2000 was dismissed on 17.03.2004. The petitioner, therefore, ﬁled instant writ petition for a writ of Certiorari to quash order of learned District Judge conﬁrming the order of ﬁrst respondent. Learned counsel for opposite parties made their respective submissions. They also made submissions with regard to certain factual controversy. However, the writ petition being one for Certiorari, this Court is not inclined to go into the facts. The only issue that needs to be considered is whether ﬁrst respondent and appellate authority – learned District Judge committed error apparent on the face of record in excise of their jurisdiction. Both the lower authorities directed the petitioner to pay in his personal capacity the alleged arrears/damages to APSRTC. When the licence was granted to VCA and licence deed was also executed by said company represented by the petitioner, whether the petitioner can be made liable. The answer must be in negative. This Court has gone through the allotment letter dated 22.02.1996, deed of licence and other correspondence between APSRTC and the petitioner. There cannot be any doubt that the licence was granted to VCA and for payment of arrears or damages it is only said company as a licensee is liable to pay. Section 7 of the Act lays down that a state oﬃcer may by order require any person to pay the arrears of rent payable in respect of public premises. ‘Person’ referred to herein is person to whom licence was granted. It is nobody’s case that licence was granted to the petitioner and that he executed licence deed. The allegation of learned standing counsel that tender was filed by the petitioner and allotment was made to him alone is belied by a reference to the tender schedule annexed to the writ petition which clearly shows that it is only VCA which sought licence and to whom licence was granted. In that view of the matter, this Court holds that the impugned order suﬀers from grave error apparent on the face of record and writ of Certiorari should go. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.03.2004 in A.S.No.183 of 2000 on the ﬁle of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam is quashed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 10th November, 2008 GHN To 1 Estate Officer, A.P.S.R.T.C. Visakhapatnam District -530 016. 2 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Assistant Traffic Manager, Dwaraka Bus Station Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530 016. 3 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}