HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30938 of 2014 Date:16.10.2014 Between:
N.Yadavendra, S/o N.Gopala Krishnud . Petitioner And:
A.P. Road Transport Corporation, reptd by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director and two others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.Harinath Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri K.V.Subba Reddy The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2, in not issuing No Objection Certificate in respect of bus bearing registration No.AP 02 8845, belonging to the petitioner, which was hired to the said respondents, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner has hired the above-mentioned vehicle to respondent Nos.1 and 2 under agreement, dated 31.10.2012. Under Caluse-4 (iv) of the said agreement, the petitioner is liable to pay compensation that may be awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal or Tribunals in respect of accidents. The petitioner’s vehicle was involved in an accident leading to filing of O.P.No.331 of 2010 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantapur. The said O.P. was disposed of by the said Tribunal by order, dated 07.12.2012, whereunder a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount with joint and several liability against the petitioner, APSRTC and the insurer was awarded. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that APSRTC has filed MACMA.No.751 of 2012 against the said order before this Court and that on 03.04.2012, an interim order granting stay, subject to APSRTC depositing 50% of the decretal amount was granted and that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was recovered from the bill payable by the petitioner to APSRTC on 15.12.2012. When the petitioner approached the Regional Manager of APSRTC, Anantapur, for issue of No Objection Certificate, he has informed the petitioner, vide his letter No.P3/359(64)/2008-RM-A, dated 01.10.2014 that soon after the settlement of the accident case, clearance certificate will be issued.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to non issue of No Objection Certificate, the petitioner is unable to put the vehicle to use. He has initially tried to persuade this Court that respondent Nos.1 and 2 may be directed to issue No Objection Certificate on the petitioner executing the Indemnity bond. However, when this Court has expressed its disinclination to accept this submission, the learned counsel submitted that his client will furnish bank guarantee for the balance of compensation awarded after giving credit to Rs.25,000/-, which was already recovered from the petitioner’s bill, and that furnishing of bank guarantee may be subject to the result of the pending MACMA.No.751 of 2012 before this Court.
After hearing the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, I find this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner reasonable. Even if the No Objection Certificate is issued, the bank guarantee that may be furnished by the petitioner will protect the interests of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
For the above-mentioned reasons, respondent No.2 is directed to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of the petitioner’s bus bearing registration No. AP 02 8845, subject to the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1 lakh and also on his executing Indemnity bond. The petitioner shall keep the bank guarantee alive till the disposal of the MACMA No.751 of 2012. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall be subject to the result of the said MACMA.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.38685 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
16th October, 2014 DR
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY