IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.11112 OF 2009 Date:27.07. 2011 Between:- Ch.Samarasimha Reddy .. Petitioner And APSRTC, rep.by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in not paying the hire charges on the actual operational distance of the petitioner’s bus bearing Nos.AP 36 U 6282 and AP 36 X 1632 for the period from 26.06.2000 to 05.08.2007 and 06.08.2007 to till date respectively on the routes allotted to him as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondent Corporation to pay the hire charges on the actual operational distance arrived at in the joint survey, dated 29.08.2007, and to pay the difference of amount of hire charges on the actual operational distance of the petitioner’s buses after deducting the actual payments made till date along with an appropriate rate of interest. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of bus bearing No.AP36 U 6282 and has been plying it for respondent Corporation on hire upon entering an agreement on 22.06.2000 on the route Jangoan to Mothukur and Jangaon to Golankonda pursuant to the notification of the respondent Corporation notifying the distance of mileage as 330 kms. The petitioner started plying the said bus pursuant to the allotment made by respondent No.4 after accepting his tender quotation. Though the notified mileage is 330 kms, the actual distance between the said routes is 348 kms and respondent No.5 started paying the hire charges only for the distance of 328 kms only at the agreed rate of hire. So, he made a representation on 19.12.2000 to respondent No.5 to conduct joint survey to the route allotted to his bus, which started operating from 22.06.2000. The Assistant Manager, Jangoan conducted joint survey to the route allotted by deleting the single trips between Jangoan to Golankonda, vide joint survey report, dated 16.08.2001, arrived at a distance of 309.7 kms per trip and forwarded the same to respondent No.5, who started paying him the hire charges for a distance of 290 kms only though the operational distance established in the joint survey is 309.7 kms, thus, making the petitioner loose the eligible hire charges on variation of 20 kms per trip at the time of plying the bus from 26.06.2000 to 06.03.2001 and 19.7 kms per trip for the period from 07.03.2001 to 30.09.2001. Respondent No.5 paid the hire charges to 309.7 kms for the period from 01.10.2001 to 30.06.2002 and without any notice or assigning any reason, started paying the hire charges from 01.07.2002 to till date only for a distance of 290 kms though the actual operational distance is 309.7 kms. While so, in the year 2007, the respondent Corporation requested him to replace the said bus with 2007 Model and accordingly, he produced 2007 Model bus bearing No.AP 36 X 1632 for the purpose of plying the same between the route allotted i.e., Jangoan-Mothkur via Lingala Ghanpur and Jangoan – Mothkur via Kallem and Suddala and Jangoan – Golankonda – Kallem and respondent conducted the inspection on 04.08.2007 and started plying the bus on the said route from 06.08.2007 after entering into the agreement with respondent No.4 on 06.08.2007. Though the route allotted to the 2007 model bus is different from the original route allotted to his bus initially, he was paid the hire charges only for a distance of 290 kms. Pursuant to several representations made to respondent Nos.4 and 5, the respondent Corporation conducted the joint survey to the said route and arrived at 326.2 kms after deducting R & B fraction, and supplied copy of the said route survey report to the petitioner. Despite making several route surveys to the routes from the year 2001 onwards, the respondent Corporation, without assigning any reasons and without implementing the distance arrived at during the said joint surveys, is paying only to a limited extent. The respondent Corporation, without considering his representations and the joint surveys conducted from time to time, did not choose to implement the same for the purpose of calculation of the hire charges resulting in severe loss. Further, he made a representation, dated 17.03.2009, to respondent No.4 but of no use. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondent Corporation filed a counter affidavit stating that a joint survey was conducted on 16.11.2010 in the presence of petitioner and the petitioner also acknowledged the same and that the petitioner would be paid in accordance with the route length as determined/arrived at in the joint survey. 4. In view of the admission made in the counter affidavit by the respondent Corporation, the writ petition has to be allowed. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondent Corporation to pay the difference amount, if any, basing on the route length as determined/arrived at in the joint survey, dated 16.11.2010, and issue proceedings accordingly within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 27th July, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.11112 OF 2009 Date:27.07.2011 AMD