IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
N. Aruna - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 11215, 11273, 11274 & 11275 OF 2023
Decided on : 12-08-2024
Mandamus - Writ Petition - Article 226 - The court examined the legality of retrospective recovery of hire charges based on a survey, emphasizing the need for adherence to tender conditions and principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private transport operator, challenged an order to recover excess hire charges retrospectively based on a survey that altered the route distance, claiming it violated the terms of the tender and agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the retrospective recovery of hire charges illegal, as it was not supported by the tender conditions and lacked procedural fairness, allowing the petitioner a refund for the period prior to the survey.
Issues: Whether the retrospective recovery of hire charges was valid and if the petitioner was entitled to a refund for the excess amount deducted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that executive orders must have prospective effect unless explicitly stated otherwise, and that unilateral changes to tender conditions after the fact are impermissible.
Result: The writ petition is allowed-in-part, declaring the recovery order illegal and granting a refund for the specified period.
ORDER :
1. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is inter-related, all these writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of through this common order. W.P.No.11215 of 2023 is taken as a leading case.
W.P.No.11215 of 2023
2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a private transport operator having vast experience in transport filed. The 2nd respondent issued Tender Notification dated 22/23.06.2013 for hiring private buses under “Hire Scheme” and invited applications from private entrepreneurs/operators for supply of Bharat Stage-III, 2013 Model Express, Pallevelugu and City Ordinary Type Buses under “Hire Scheme” for operation on the identified routes.
4. Pursuant to the tender notification, the petitioner submitted his application on 09.07.2023 for the route Jammalamadugu – Kolimigundla – Tadipatri as Pallevelugu Service under Hire Scheme at Jammalamadugu Depot. As per the Notification, the route length per single was 7.5 Kms and for six singles it is 392 Kms and floor rate is Rs.16.81 Ps per kilometer and the petitioner was declared eligible for allotment of the route applied for. Accordingly, the route Jammalamadugu – Kolimigundla – Tadipatri was allotted in faovur of the petitioner vide proceedings E/359(1)/2013-ED „K? Zone dated 12.07.2013 by the Office of the Executive Director, Kadapa with the vehicle utilization 392 Kms at the rate of Rs.16.81 ps per kilometer to ply as Pallevelugu. As such, the petitioner had to operate four single trips between Jammalamadugu to Tadipatri and two single trips between Jammalamadugu to Kolimigundla.
5. The A.P.S.R.T.C by considering the representation of the Hire Bus Owners Welfare Association, extended the existing agreements of the Hire Buses of A.P.S.R.T.C to the extent of the days lost due to Covid-19 pandemic from 22.03.2020 to 12.11.2020 being total 236 days. The petitioner entered into supplementary agreement with the Corporation by an amendment. The said Supplementary Agreement dated 22.01.2021 was valid from 23.01.2021 to 15.09.2021. Another Supplementary Agreement was entered on 08.09.2021 for a period of 121 days i.e from 03.09.2021 to 14.01.2022. Finally, the petitioner entered into one year agreement with the 4th respondent from 05.02.2022 upto 04.02.2023.
6. While so, to the surprise of the petitioner, the 8th respondent issued impugned order dated 02.11.2022 ordering to recover an amount of Rs.2,92,127/- retrospectively w.e.f. 10.07.2018 out of the Hire Charges payable to the petitioner from the month of October, 2022 on installment basis. Accordingly, the 8th res
Retrospective recovery of amounts by public authorities must adhere to established tender conditions and principles of natural justice.
Retrospective recovery of amounts under an executive order is impermissible without following due process and the principles of natural justice.
Adopting a different view in matter in facts and circumstances of case would not be permissible in eye of law.
A party cannot claim amounts post-agreement if they accepted payments without objection and did not raise disputes during the contract's term.
The issuance of a No Demand Certificate validly discharged the contract, and subsequent demands by the Food Corporation of India were arbitrary and illegal.
A party's acceptance of contract terms and payments without objection can bar subsequent claims for additional amounts or contesting penalties imposed under the agreement.
Point of law: punishment imposed on the petitioner by way of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the charge of closing the SR prematurely and this requires to be interfered with by....
Parties to a contract must adhere to its terms despite unforeseen circumstances like force majeure, and disputes arising from such a contract should be resolved through contractual mechanisms, not ju....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.