K. Jagan Reddy, v. A.P.S.R.T.C Rep., By Its Vice Chairman And Managing Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE; AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WRIT PETITION No. 20398 of 2015 BETWEEN K.Jagan Reddy

...Petitioner

And APSRTC, rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerbad, Hyderabad and ors.

....Respondents.

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 16.07.2015.

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

1. Whether reports of Local newspapers May be allowed to see the judgments?

YES/NO

2. Whether the copies of judgments may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals.

YES/NO

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to See the fair copy of the Judgment ?

YES/NO.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 20398 of 2015 ORDER:

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner is the owner and operator of the bus bearing No. AP 29TA 3266. The petitioner is the successful tenderer pursuant to the tender notification issued by the first respondent on 23.5.2008 for operation of the passenger buses on hire on the route Afjalgunj to Nanajipur (Route No. 251 N). After entering into an agreement on 25.7.2008, the petitioner started operating the aforesaid bus with the third respondent from 2008 onwards.

The period of agreement ended on 7.8.2014. The petitioner expressed his willingness to operate the bus for the 7th and 8th year and consequently third respondent issued letter dated 8.9.2014 for operating the bus even after expiry of agreement. But no agreement was entered into after expiry of the original agreement. The petitioner is being paid 80% of the hire charges despite the representation made to the respondents on 31.01.2015 for payment of full hire charges and entering of agreement. Hence the present Writ Petition.

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents on the basis of the written instructions submits that after the completion of 6th year operation and after adjustment of the ensuing bills to the owner of the vehicle, the respondents would

be paying 80% of the hire charges. However, this court is not in a position to verify the hire charges at this stage. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 3.2.2015, 18.3.2015 and 30.5.2015 regarding payment of hire charges and representation dated 31.01.2015 with regard to entering of agreement for the 7th and 8th year and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.

--------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 16TH JULY, 2015.

Msnrx