IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.13499 of 2007 Between: Maganti Akhilandeswari … Petitioner And A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Sridhar Reddy Counsel for respondents 1-3: Sri K. Madhava Reddy SC for APSRTC Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 13499 of 2007 ORDER:- This case presents a set of rather peculiar facts. The petitioner was the successful tenderer for contract pertaining to cycle stand in APSRTC New Bus Station, Eluru, West Godavari District for a period of 4 years from 15.08.2004 to 14.08.2008 on a monthly licence fees of Rs.52,111-16 ps for two years and with certain enhancements during the third and fourth years. The petitioner committed default in payment of monthly licence fee from February 2007 to April 2007 and he allowed accumulation of arrears to a tune of Rs.1,93,224/-. Respondent No.5 was granted licence for running Canteen at the same complex for a period of five years from 26.08.2002 to 25.08.2007. Respondent No.5 failed to pay the rent at the revised licence fee for the fourth year i.e., from 26.08.2005 to 25.08.2006 and accordingly she fell in arrears of licence fees. Therefore, the Corporation terminated the canteen licence of respondent No.5 on 26.04.2007. The canteen was closed with effect from 30.04.2007. On 08.05.2007, one G. Nageshwar Rao remitted a sum of Rs.1,30,423/- in respect of which a receipt was passed on by the employee concerned on behalf of the Depot Manager in the name of respondent No.5. While the petitioner claimed that the said amount was remitted by her clerk G. Nageshwar Rao, the Corporation has maintained that Sri G. Nageshwar Rao was the canteen Manager of respondent No.5 and that he remitted the said amount with a view to seek revocation of the cancellation order by clearing all the dues. Respondent No.5 supported the plea of the petitioner that the said amount was indeed remitted on behalf of the latter and that the receipt was mistakenly given in her name by the Corporation employee. In ordinary course, this Court would not have embarked upon the adjudication of this dispute, because the same calls for appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary, but in the considered view of this Court, the interests of the Corporation will not suffer even if the plea of the petitioner, supported by respondent No.5, is accepted, in which case respondent No.5 would be in arrears, if the amount in dispute is credited to the petitioner’s account. Therefore, when respondent No.5 herself has come forward to support the petitioner’s case that the disputed amount was remitted on behalf of the petitioner, I do not find any reason for the Corporation not to accept the plea of the petitioner. In such an event, the Corporation would be required to recover the arrears to the extent of the disputed amount from respondent No.5 instead of from the petitioner. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel submitted that if the petitioner’s plea is accepted, she will be entitled to continuance of the lease in respect of the cycle stand. This apprehension is allayed by the petitioner in her additional affidavit, wherein she stated that having got fed up with the attitude of respondent Nos.3 and 4, she opted for termination of licence by issuing prior notice dated 31.05.2008 and requested the Corporation to adjust the licence fee from out of the security deposit and that the petitioner stopped operating the cycle stand with effect from 10.08.2008 and delivered possession to respondent No.3. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Corporation to adjust the amount of Rs.1,30,423/- to the credit of the petitioner and recover the same from respondent No.5 in accordance with law. Consequently, the corresponding amount adjusted from out of the security deposit of the petitioner shall be returned to her. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.16915 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.07.2009 ES