IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 19633 of 2003 Between: C. Hari, S/o C.Reddeppa, R/o Peta Agraharam Village, Vajjireddipalli Post, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Tirupathi Region, Chittoor. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Chittoor II Depot. 4 T. Subbarayulu, R/o Ramnagar Colony, Chittoor. .....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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in deducting the amounts that are allegedly excess paid to the 4th respondent from the bills of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondents : Standing counsel for APSRTC The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.19633 OF 2003 ORDER: The writ petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of third respondent in deducting the amounts from the hire charges payable to petitioner allegedly on the ground that excess amounts were paid earlier as illegal and arbitrary. The fourth respondent was given contract to supply bus No.TN 27T 5889 on hire basis to ply on approved route of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) from Chittoor to Pullur, Chittoor to Basireddypalli, Chittoor to Kammakandriga village and Chittoor to Amudala (hereafter called, approved route) covering a distance of 330 kilometers per day. It appears petitioner purchased the bus as well as the route from fourth respondent, as a result of which, APSRTC entered into fresh agreement, dated 05.06.2000 with the petitioner. When it was found that the actual length of the route is less than 320 kilometers by 30.4 kilometers, second respondent directed third respondent to recover the excess amounts paid to fourth respondent. Amounts payable to petitioner were also stopped. Therefore, petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.7463 of 2002, which was disposed of by this Court inter alia observing that oﬃcials of APSRTC should conduct a joint survey and determine the route. Whether joint survey was conducted and whether correct length of the route was determined are not relevant for the purpose of this case. Be that as it is, on 08.04.2002, third respondent issued notice to petitioner demanding Rs.1,03,203/- towards the excess amount which was allegedly paid to fourth respondent when he was plying the bus on the approved route and the amounts payable to petitioner was stopped, and therefore, he ﬁled the instant writ petition. I n K.Venkata Reddy v A.P.S.R.T.C., [1], this Court considered a question in similar set of facts. The writ petition was allowed observing as under. When the said defect was detected in the joint survey conducted by the Corporation and it was concluded that the distance of the above route is only 308.20 KMs but not 340 KMs and addressed a letter to the petitioner directing him to pay excess hire charges of Rs.14,023/- paid for the period from 23.02.2001 to 04.08.2001, petitioner complied with the said direction and paid the said amount also. However, for the period for which he did not ply the bus and for the lapses on the part of the fourth respondent, it is not known as to how the Corporation can ﬁx the liability on the petitioner, as if the petitioner and the fourth respondent belong to a partnership ﬁrm. Except the fact that the petitioner was introduced by the fourth respondent to the Corporation, petitioner has nothing to do with any of the activities of the fourth respondent. For all purposes, the agreement entered into by the petitioner with the Corporation on 22.02.2001 is a fresh agreement to ply the bus in the above route and as he refunded the excess hire charges paid to him for the period from 23.02.2001 to 04.08.2001, in my considered view, he is not liable to pay the alleged excess amount for the period prior to 22.02.2001. It is only the fourth respondent, who is liable to refund the excess amount to the Corporation. In stead of proceeding against him, the Corporation issued notice dated 03.09.2001 ﬁxing the liability on the petitioner. When petitioner was introduced by fourth respondent for the purpose of changing bus, RTC entered into new contract with petitioner on 05.06.2000. When there was such a novation between the parties by reason of which one of the original parties was excluded from the contract, any obligation that would arise under old contract can be enforced only against person who entered into contract and not against person who entered into new contract. In that view of the matter, RTC has no justiﬁcation to withhold amounts payable to petitioner for the period during which he plied his bus on the notified route as per the agreement dated 05.06.2000. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, giving liberty to APSRTC to approach against fourth respondent if so advised. Respondents 1 to 3 shall pay costs of writ petition to petitioner. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) 31.10.2008. pln [1] W.P.No.17087 of 2003, dated 30.7.2007