THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 4719 OF 2005 Dated 30th June, 2010 Between: K.Kashi Vishweshwar Rao and 13 others …. Petitioners and APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad And two others … Respondents The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioners, who are 14 in number, filed this writ petition for a Mandamus to declare Reply No.P4/785 (Gen)/04-RM.N dated 01.11.2004 issued by the Office of the Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”), Nalgonda, as illegal. By the impugned reply, the Corporation refused to consider the case of the petitioners for absorbing them into its service under the category of ‘displaced employees’. The petitioners claim that they worked as Drivers, Conductors and Cleaners in the private buses bearing Nos. AND 1456 and TN-23 N 813 belonging to respondent No.3, plying in the route in between Gangubanda-Huzurnagar. It is the case of the petitioners that acting on the complaint given by the Villagers of Gangubanda, the Regional Transport Authority, Nalgonda, issued proceedings dated 17.03.2003 cancelling the permits issued in respect of the above said buses and directing the Regional Manager-respondent No.2 to operate the buses in the said route. In view of these proceedings, respondent No.3 stopped running the buses and as a result, the employment of the petitioners with respondent No.3 was terminated. The further case of the petitioners is that since the route Gangubanda-Huzurnagar was nationalised by taking over of the said route by the Corporation, they got issued a legal notice to respondents 1 and 2 to consider their case for absorption into the services of the Corporation under the category of ‘displaced employees’ as per the policy notified by the Corporation. Through the impugned reply, their request was rejected by the Corporation. Hence, this writ petition. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, wherein, it is stated that the route Gangubanda-Huzurnagar was not handed over to the Corporation and the said route was not nationalised. It is precisely the case of the respondents that in the absence of nationalisation of the route on which the buses of respondent No.3 were being plied, the petitioners, who claim to have worked under respondent No.3, are not entitled for any absorption into the services of the Corporation. It is true that there is a policy notified by the Corporation for absorption of the employees working in private buses, when they are displaced in view of nationalisation of the routes. But in the instant case though the Regional Transport Authority has entertained the complaint of the Villagers of Gangubanda and issued directions to the Regional Manager, Nalgonda for stopping the private buses on the route Gangubanda-Huzurnagar and to operate the Corporation buses, in view of the averments in the counter-affidavit, wherein the respondents have denied taking over of the route in question by the Corporation and also nationalisation of the same, it appears that the said route is not yet nationalised so as to extend the benefit of the policy notified by the Corporation. Merely because there was a direction by the Regional Transport Authority to respondent No.2 to operate the buses, the same cannot be construed as nationalisation of the route in question as per the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners have any claim against respondent No.3, it is open for them to pursue the same in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 30th June, 2010 vrn