IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.794 of 2014 BETWEEN Smt. S. Rama Devi.
…PETITIONER AND J. Poornachander Rao, APSRTC, Rep. by its VC & Managing Director, Hyderabad and two others.
…RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. S. NANDA Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K. SRINIVASA RAO The Court made the following order:
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) This contempt case alleges non-compliance of the directions of this Court, as stated in para 5 of the judgment in WA.No.78 of 2013 dated 13.03.2013.
2. As per the aforesaid directions, the respondent corporation was required to conduct a joint survey and note down actual distance covered including additional trips by the buses of the petitioner and in case, the total distance is exceeding more than the kilometers agreed to by the parties in the agreement, the respondents shall pay the difference of charges for additional trips without any further delay.
3. This contempt case is filed alleging that after the disposal of the writ appeal, the respondents addressed a letter dated 25.06.2013 requiring the petitioner to attend the joint survey and the said letter mentions to employ the method of correction factor while conducting the joint survey. Petitioner states that she was not agreeable to applying the correction factor and as such, the respondents again addressed a letter dated 31.07.2013 alleging that petitioner declined to attend joint survey. It is stated that the respondents actually conducted the survey on 25.10.2013 and thereby, had not complied with the orders of this Court.
4. In response to notice before admission dated 11.07.2014, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the method of conducting joint survey is as per the circular instructions vide Circular No.5/2001 MED dated 05.03.2001 where the correction factor is taken into consideration and the manner in which the calculation of route length is to be obtained was stipulated.
It is stated that following the said circular, the joint survey was proposed to be conducted, in compliance with the directions of this Court, for which the petitioner was given notice but the petitioner chose not to attend the joint survey. It is also stated that as per the said joint survey report the route length works out to 312 KMs whereas payments were made to the petitioner for 314 KMs and thereby, excess amount was paid to the petitioner. It is also stated that the joint survey shows that the route from Khammam – Jaggaiahpet was arrived at 329.94 KMs whereas payment was made for 330 KMs per day.
5. So far as other allegations are concerned, it is stated that as per the joint survey report, the petitioner is not entitled to any additional payment and in fact, there are recoveries. It is further stated that there are no additional trips operated by the petitioner than for which payment is already made. A copy of the joint survey conducted on 25.10.2013 is also enclosed along with the circular of APSRTC dated 05.03.2001.
6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit disputing the manner in which the joint survey is conducted and though the learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the finding reached in the said survey, we are unable to accept the submissions on behalf of the petitioner, particularly, in view of para 4 of the judgment in WA.No.78 of 2013 wherein it is mentioned that there is no controversy with regard to route length between the parties. However, since the number of trips was disputed, this Court directed the joint survey to be conducted to note down the actual distance including the additional trips by the buses of the petitioner. Since the joint survey is already conducted and since it is not established by the petitioner that charges for any additional trips by the petitioner are not paid by APSRTC, we do no see any non-compliance of the directions of this Court.
7. At this stage, learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation fairly states that the respondent corporation would not, however, recover the excess payment already made to the petitioner.
The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J S. RAVI KUMAR, J October 18, 2014 DSK