The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.18199 of 2009 Dated 19th July, 2010 Between: Smt.S.Suseela …Petitioner And The APSRTC and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.Raghu Counsel for the respondents: Mrs.G.Pramalatha for Mrs.WVS.Rajeswari, SC for APSRTC The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents, in paying hire charges for the extra distance for which the petitioner’s stage carriage vehicle is plied on Tirupathi to Chittoor route, as illegal. I have heard Sri V.Raghu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.G.Premalatha, learned Counsel representing Smt.WVS.Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner claims to be the owner of stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No.AP 03 U 5850 and has lent her bus on hire to the respondents for being plied on the Chittoor to Tirupathi route. An agreement was stated to have been entered with the Corporation on 13-04-2004 for a period of three years from 13-04-2004 to 12-04-2007, and that the lease period was extended twice thereafter upto 12-04-2009. It is the case of the petitioner that she was being paid lease treating the distance covered by her vehicle per day as 429 kilometres and that the actual distance is 3 ½ kilometres more on every single trip. According to the petitioner’s calculation the difference of hire charges payable to her for the period from 02-01- 2005 to 01-04-2009 comes to Rs.3,58,528/-. The petitioner filed a copy of her representation, dated 10-11-2008, wherein she requested respondent No.2 for payment of the short fall in the hire charges by calculating the daily distance at 450 kilometres instead of 429 kilometres for which payment was made. The petitioner has also filed a calculation sheet along with her representation in support of her claim. A similar representation addressed to respondent No.3 is also filed by the petitioner. The learned Counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC submitted that the representations made by the petitioner are pending with respondent Nos.2 and 3 and that respondent No.2 has no objection for holding a joint survey and that on completion of such survey, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to payment of extra hire charges, she will be made such payment. Having regard to the above-submission of the learned Counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without rendering any finding on the claim of the petitioner, with the direction to respondent No.2 to get a joint survey held and pass appropriate order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the joint survey reveals that the petitioner is entitled to payment of hire charges, such payment shall be made within a period of one month after completion of such joint survey. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 19th July, 2010 lur