terminating his licence and calling upon him to pay additional licence fee of Rs.1,97,690/- for utilization of additional space admeasuring 2185 square feet. = Significantly, there is no examination of the issue as to whether the petitioner had used the additional space and no finding is recorded in that regard. Once the APSRTC undertook before this Court that the said issue would be examined and only after such examination, the demand for payment of additional licence fee towards use of additional space would be enforced, notwithstanding the failure, if any, on the part of the petitioner to submit his explanation, the APSRTC was bound to examine the said issue independently on the basis of the material available before it, come to a conclusion and only thereafter take necessary action in the matter. The impugned termination order dated 24.12.2012 is therefore found to be in violation of the undertaking given by the APSRTC before this Court in W.P. No.35000 of 2012. 5. The termination order dated 24.12.2012 is accordingly set aside. It shall be open to the APSRTC to examine the issue afresh in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.3490 of 2013

Date: April 25, 2013


Between:
G. Venkat Narayana                                                             …          Petitioner

And

1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC,
   Bhadrachalam, Khammam District & 2 others.                 …          Respondents


*           *           *

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.3490 of 2013

ORDER:

            The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings dated 24.12.2012 issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) terminating his licence and calling upon him to pay additional licence fee of Rs.1,97,690/- for utilization of additional space admeasuring 2185 square feet. 

2.         The present writ petition is the third in a series of cases filed by the petitioner on this issue.  The first writ petition, W.P. No.17298 of 2012, called in question the proceedings dated 06.06.2012 passed by the APSRTC requiring the petitioner to pay Rs.1,97,690/- towards unauthorized occupation of this open space.  
The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 27.08.2012 on the ground that the APSRTC had not provided a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner but leaving it open to it to issue an appropriate notice to him; giving an opportunity to submit his explanation, along with a personal hearing, and thereafter to pass a fresh speaking order.  
Thereupon, the APSRTC issued proceedings dated 19.10.2012 reiterating its demand that the petitioner should pay the sum of Rs.1,97,690/-. 
The said proceedings were challenged in W.P. No.35000 of 2012.  
By order dated 20.11.2012, this Court disposed of the said writ petition recording the submission of the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC that separate proceedings were being initiated to examine whether the petitioner had used this additional space and undertaking that the impugned proceedings would not be enforced till the said issue was examined.

3.         It is pursuant to this order that the APSRTC claims to have issued show cause notice dated 22.11.2012.  
According to it, the petitioner failed to submit his explanation thereto.  
The APSRTC then proceeded to issue the termination order dated 24.12.2012 which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4.         Therein, having recounted the past history, the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Khammam, merely stated that after the show cause notice dated 22.11.2012 was issued to the petitioner, he did not submit his explanation thereto and in view of the same, he ordered that the petitioner’s licence be terminated duly forfeiting the security deposit.  
Significantly, there is no examination of the issue as to whether the petitioner had used the additional space and no finding is recorded in that regard.  
Once the APSRTC undertook before this Court that the said issue would be examined and only after such examination, the demand for payment of additional licence fee towards use of additional space would be enforced, 
notwithstanding the failure, if any, on the part of the petitioner to submit his explanation, 
the APSRTC was bound to examine the said issue independently on the basis of the material available before it, come to a conclusion and only thereafter take necessary action in the matter.  

The impugned termination order dated 24.12.2012 is therefore found to be in violation of the undertaking given by the APSRTC before this Court in W.P. No.35000 of 2012. 

5.         The termination order dated 24.12.2012 is accordingly set aside. 
It shall be open to the APSRTC to examine the issue afresh in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. 

6.         The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. W.P.M.P. No.4334 of 2013 shall stand closed in the light of this final order.  No costs.

__________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: April 25, 2013.
BSB

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Oval: 28

 








WRIT PETITION No.3490 of 2013




































Date: April 25, 2013

BSB

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.