IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.3085 of 2009 Between: D.Prabhu Kishore, S/o.D.Nageswara Rao R/o.D.No.4/60, Nawabpet, Nellore, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Nellore Region, Nellore, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may 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 not issuing clearance certificate in respect of the bus bearing AP 26 W 2449, hired with the respondents herein as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of provisions of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to issue clearance certificate in respect of the said bus and to 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: MR.J.SESHAGIRI RAO Counsel for Respondents: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.3085 of 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. According to the petitioner, he hired his bus bearing Registration No.AP 26 W 2449 to the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent Corporation’), by entering into an agreement dated 11.06.2004. It is the case of the petitioner that on 28.02.2005, the said bus involved in a road accident resulting in death of two persons. Consequent thereto, legal representatives of the said deceased persons filed claim petitions in M.V.O.P.Nos.518 and 540 of 2005 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge’s Court, Tirupati, against the petitioner, respondent Corporation and the Insurance Company with which the bus was insured, seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased persons. The petitioner remained ex parte in both the O.Ps., while the respondent Corporation and the Insurance Company contested the same, and the Tribunal, by separate judgments and decrees dated 05.02.2008, awarded compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- and Rs.3,87,767/- respectively, with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 7.5% per annum, to the claimants in both the O.Ps., payable by the petitioner, respondent Corporation and the Insurance Company. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent Corporation and the Insurance Company preferred appeals in M.A.C.M.A.(Sr).Nos.31444, 3266 and 2675 of 2008 before this Court and they are still pending. While things stood thus, the Depot Manager, Venkatagiri Depot of the respondent Corporation, by order dated 10.05.2008, sought to recover an amount of Rs.50,000/-, at the rate of Rs.25,000/- payable to the claimants in each M.V.O.P., from out of the hire charges payable to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner got issued a legal notice to the respondent Corporation as well as the Insurance Company stating that the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is payable by the Insurance Company alone, and, hence, requested the respondent Corporation to refund the amounts withheld from out of the rents payable to him. It is the further case of the petitioner that earlier also there were arrears of about Rs.3,00,000/- payable to him by the respondent Corporation in respect of two other buses hired by him and the same is so far not paid despite several reminders. Further, as he is in financial problems, he wanted to get back his bus hired with the respondent Corporation so as to sell the same, and, therefore, requested the respondent Corporation to issue Clearance Certificate to him, vide representations dated 23.10.2008 and 05.01.2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, having received the said representations, has not taken any action till date. Hence, this writ petition. Admittedly, the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation with regard to hiring of the bus owned by the petitioner is in force and as per the terms and conditions of the contract, the owner of the bus is also liable for payment of compensation. The Tribunal, after going through the entire evidence and after detailed consideration of the matter, allowed the claim petitions filed by the legal representatives of the deceased persons and directed payment of compensation with proportionate costs and subsequent interest to the claimants to be payable by the petitioner herein, the respondent Corporation and the Insurance Company jointly. That apart, the issue of liability of the owner of the vehicle with regard to payment of compensation to the claimants was already referred to a Full Bench of this Court and the same is pending, as stated by the learned counsel on either side. In such circumstances, this Court cannot grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner, at this stage. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 18th February, 2009 IBL