IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.13782 of 2004 Between: E. Reddeppa Naidu S/o. Venkataiah, Govt., Degree College, Vayalpad, R/o. 7-134/B, Chinthaparthy(v) , Vayalpadu(v) , Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, rep. by its Vice Chairman and M.D., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, PILER, Chittoor District. 3 The Director Vigilance and Security, APSRTC, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in collecting Rs. 96.800/- as ﬁne for taking 50% concession pass under physically handicapped quota as the petitioner is not eligible as he is an Govt., Employee is illegal, arbitrary, un-constitutional and direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 96,800/- to the petitioner which was acknowledged by respondent No.2 by letter Dt. 24.5.2004 with interest till the date of recovery and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.13782 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner is a physically challenged person. He is a Doctorate in Telugu, and at relevant time, he was working as Lecturer in NTR Degree College, Vayalpadu. He applied for concessional bus pass issued to physically challenged persons by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (RTC) during the period 1996 to 2003. It appears, a complaint was received from an Advocate of Madanapalle by the Managing Director of RTC. It was complained that the petitioner availed concessional bus pass, though he was working as a Lecturer in NTR Degree College, Vayalpadu, and misused the facility. Therefore, an enquiry was ordered. The Vigilance and Security Oﬃcials conducted enquiry, during which, the petitioner submitted explanation/written statement admitting the lapse. Therefore, the amount towards travel charges was collected at Rs.1,100/- per month for 60 months from 09.02.1996 to 13.02.2001 for PHC buss pass from Madanapalle II Depot and Rs.1,100/- per month for 28 months from 01.06.2001 to September 2003 for having availed PHC buss pass from Piler depot. The petitioner paid the amount having admitted the lapse, and then ﬁled the instant writ petition after a period of about eight months. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in collecting Rs.96,800/- towards bus charges (without concession) and for a direction to refund the same. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled admitting the factual background. It is stated that when the Vigilance report was submitted to the Managing Director, he passed orders for recovery of Rs.96,800/- at the rate of Rs.1,100/- per month from 09.02.1996 to September 2003. The petitioner was informed that if the amount is not paid within a fortnight, the matter will be reported to the Controlling Oﬃcer of Education Department besides lodging a Police complaint. After receiving notice, the petitioner returned PH certiﬁcate to RTC and also paid Rs.10,000/- by way of demand draft on 31.12.2003 and Rs.86,800/- by way of another demand draft dated 24.05.2004. This Court heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation on 07.02.2004 giving the calculation of the amounts, which can be recovered by RTC, but the same was not considered. He disputes the liability for payment of Rs.96,800/-. RTC issued circular No.S4/89(19)/81-OPD(C), dated 03.12.1986. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are relevant, and read as under. 1.0 Introduction: Instructions were issued vide circular cited at 2 above, communicating extension of travel concession to Physically handicapped, Mentally retarded, Blind, Deaf & Dumb both in the City/Town and Mofussil Services at a concession of 100% in Cities/Town and 50% concession in normal ticket fare in Mofussil areas. It was also communicated to allow Escorts to accompany the Physically Disabled persons on payment of Rs.5/- per month in the City/Towns and on payment of 50% normal ticket fare in Mofussil areas. This facility was extended in Mofussil areas only for restricted purpose. 2.0 Representations: On the representations of various Welfare Association of the Disabled, the Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, have directed the Corporation to withdraw the restrictions imposed for travel in Mofussil areas. The matter has therefore been examined in detail keeping in view the basic needs of the disabled and it is decided to extend the present 50% concession in normal ticket fare for the following additional purposes also, duly liberalizing the existing restrictions. a) To attend Social Functions and Marriages. b) To attend Meetings organized in connection with welfare of disabled. The persons enumerated at para 1.1 of the circular cited at 2 above are now made eligible for the proposed additional facility. The physically handicapped employed in State/Central Govt. Departments/Local Bodies are not eligible for this facility. (emphasis supplied) The petitioner admittedly is a Government employee. He is working as a Lecturer in Government College. He is also availing conveyance allowance. Therefore, as per circular, he is not eligible for availing the concession facility. Admittedly, he took 50% concession bus pass for traveling from Chinthaparthy to Vayalpadu (Mofussil route), though he is not eligible for the same. When this came to the knowledge of RTC they conducted enquiry and found that petitioner availed concessional bus pass, though he is not eligible. In those circumstances, RTC was justiﬁed in recovering the amount. Insofar as the dispute regarding the amount payable by the petitioner is concerned, the same cannot be gone into in writ petition. When the notice was issued to the petitioner informing him the amount payable by him, he ought to have raised an objection. He did not raise any objection. He admitted the contravention and paid the amount without any demur. Therefore, the principle of acquiescence operates against him. The Writ Petition, for the above reasons, is devoid of any merits, and the same is dismissed accordingly. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 06.11.2008 vs To 1 The Vice Chairman and M.D., APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, PILER, Chittoor District. 3 The Director Vigilance and Security, APSRTC, Hyderabad. 4 2CCs to 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK}