THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.411 of 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 29.10.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing W.P.No.16640 of 2000 setting aside the proceedings dated 04.07.2000, whereby the appellant-Corporation sought to recover the excess payment of Rs.1,57,000/- paid by them towards hire charges from 18.07.1999 to 30.04.2000. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the respondent/writ petitioner is the owner of bus bearing No.TN-01-N-9042 and he was running the bus in the route Timmayapally (v) Velkapur, after obtaining a valid permission from the first appellant since 18.07.1999. While so, in pursuance of the Notification issued by the Corporation in the month of February, 1999, the writ petitioner entered into an agreement with the Corporation on 17.07.1999, to hire the bus owned by him from 17.07.1999 to 16.07.2001 for operating the same in the route notified. As per clause 4 of the terms of the agreement dated 17.07.1999, the Corporation shall give a guaranteed milometerage of 7000 per bus in a calendar month; that the guaranteed kilometerage will be proportionately reduced when the vehicle is not made available on any day; that for the purpose of reckoning the minimum guaranteed kilometreage the cancelled kilometers on account of mechanical breakdowns enroute shall be deducted; that the distance operated for making payment will be reckoned from the appointed place or giving the vehicle and that the Corporation shall pay the hire charges at the rate of Rs.6.51 per kilometer. In the said agreement nowhere it is specified that the distance will be taken as 300 kilometers, but under sub clause (v) of clause 4 it is specified that Rs.6.51 ps. will be paid per kilometer operated towards hire charges. The writ petitioner was paid for without actuals taking it as 300 kilometers for the route of Siddipet-Thimmaipally via Velkatur. The villagers of Velkatur made a representation to the Corporation to increase two additional trips and extend the existing service upto Rytubazar and for examination of the route timings in Janmabhoomi on 07.05.2000. Pursuant to the said representation, the route was resurveyed and found to be 19 kilometers and the total distance of all the trips comes to 216 kms per day. Then it was realised that a mistake crept in the notification as to the length of the route notified, by which time, amount was paid to the writ petitioner. The excess amount was determined @ Rs.1,57,000/- for the period from 18.07.1999 to 30.04.2000, and accordingly the appellants issued proceedings dated 04.07.2000 for recovery of the excess amount. Questioning the same, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order allowed the writ petition holding that a perusal of the agreement shows that there was no clause or condition that if a survey is conducted by the Corporation regarding the distance of the route already allotted, thereupon on the difference in distance, if any, the petitioner is liable to pay the difference amount, and that in the absence of any such clause, the Corporation, at a later stage, cannot issue the impugned proceedings for recovery of the excess amount. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. The clauses in the agreement do not indicate that each trip will be taken as 25 kilometers and the same will be paid @ Rs.6.51 ps per kilometer operated towards hire charges. Whereas, sub-clause (v) of Clause 4 of the agreement discloses that the Corporation shall pay the owner at the rate of Rs.6.51 ps per kilometer operated towards hire charges. The fact is that the petitioner was inadvertently paid hire charges for 300 kilometers per day though the actual kilometres operated per day were only 216 kilometers. Since the agreement clause shows that Rs.6.51 ps per kilometer will be paid as per the notification issued, it is always open for the Corporation to workout the kilometers operated by the bus for arriving the amounts payable to the writ petitioner. Once it is found that the distance of the route operated by the Contractor is only 19 kilometers but not 25 kilometers per trip and on multiplying with the trips operated by it, it comes to 216 kilometers instead of 300 kilometers as calculated for payment of the amount. Therefore, it is always open for the Corporation to recover the said amount paid in excess. It is well settled that disputes arising out of the terms of such contracts or alleged breaches have to be settled by the ordinary principles of law of contract, but the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interpret the terms of the agreement, and decide the disputes in a summary manner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that in the absence of any arbitration clause provided under the agreement, and since the agreement was entered pursuant to the notification issued by the Corporation, the learned Single Judge was justified in entertaining the writ petition. We do not see any force in the above said contention. The distance of kilometres determined by the Corporation on resurvey is not according to the notification issued by the Corporation, and hence, the petitioner has to approach the civil court and lead evidence with regard to the correctness of the distance and the payment of amount @ Rs.6.51 ps per actual kilometer operated by bus as per sub clause (v) of Clause 4 of agreement. In view of the same, the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not arise and the learned Single Judge erred in interpreting the terms of the agreement as referred to above, which do not indicate that Rs.6.51 ps. per kilometre will be paid for 300 Kms. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be upheld and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. A.GOPAL REDDY, J P. DURGA PRASAD, J Date: 16.11.2010 va