The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.14693 of 2009 Dated 2nd August, 2010 Between: M.Prabhakar Reddy and 2 others. …Petitioners And The State of A.P., State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr.Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Mr.Kallakuri Srinivasa Rao, SC for APSRTC The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in not paying differential lease amounts to the petitioners in respect of the three buses operated by them, as illegal and arbitrary. All the three petitioners claim to belong to one family. They have leased their buses bearing registration Nos.AP 27 W 7385, AP 27 V 6934 and AP 27 W 7071 respectively to the respondents for being plied on the Kavali to Nellore route. According to the petitioners, on account of construction of an over bridge, there was a deviation in the said route for the period from 01-03-2006 to 01-03-2007 and from July, 2007 to December, 2007 and that the respondents have not paid the hire charges in accordance with the deviated route by taking the actual distance, for which the buses were plied. It is, however, averred that in pursuance of communication, dated 12-05- 2007, issued by the Chief Traffic Manager to respondent No.2, the differential hire charges, by taking into consideration the increase by 5 kms for each single, for the period from 01-03-2006 to 01-03-2007 were paid and such charges for the period from July, 2007 to December, 2007 were not paid in case of petitioner No.2 and that no differential hire charges whatsoever were paid in case of petitioner Nos.1 and 3. The petitioners claim that they have submitted their representations, but in spite of the same, the respondents have not paid the differential hire charges. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Law Officer of the APSRTC representing the respondents wherein it is inter alia stated that no claim has been received from petitioner Nos.1 and 3 for payment of differential hire charges for extra kilometres, for which their buses were plied, and that to the extent of representation received from petitioner No.2, she was paid the differential hire charges. At the hearing, Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, stated that the stand of the respondents that representations were not received is incorrect. In support of his submission, he has taken this Court through the copies of representations stated to be given by the petitioners. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, while fairly conceding that there is no dispute regarding the increased distance on account of construction of over bridge during the period for which the petitioners are making their claim, submitted that the petitioners are required to submit the log sheets to show that during the period in question, they have operated the buses as per their claim. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the log sheets are maintained by the respondents and that there is no justification for them to insist on production of such log sheets by the petitioners. In my opinion, when there is no dispute between the parties regarding the actual distance, the only aspect that requires to be considered and decided is whether the petitioners have run their buses under lease on the route in question as claimed by them with reference to the number of days and trips. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, these details must be a matter of record being maintained by the offices of respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is, therefore, not difficult for the said respondents to ascertain the claim of the petitioners with reference to the record such as log sheets being maintained by them. In this view of the matter, I do not find any justification in respondent Nos.2 and 3 not finalising the petitioners’ claims for extra hire charges. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the claims of the petitioners raised in this Writ Petition with reference to the log sheets available with them and pass appropriate order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the respondents find that the petitioners have plied their buses as claimed by them, they shall make payment to the petitioners within a period of four weeks thereafter. If the respondents arrive at a converse conclusion, a detailed order in this regard shall be passed and communicated to the petitioners within the above-stipulated time. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 23-09-2009, is vacated and WPMP.No.19283 of 2009, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 2nd August, 2010 lur