Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 567
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
S. Sreenivas – Petitioner
Versus
The APSRTC – Respondent
Writ Petition No.644 Of 2015
Decided On : 04-09-2024
For the Petitioner: Ponampelli Ravi.
For the Respondent: Gaddam Srinivas, (SC) For TSRTC.
IMPORTANT POINT
Claims for payment under a contract are subject to a three-year limitation period, and disputed questions of fact may preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India – Articles 14, 19, and 300-A – Writ of Mandamus – The petitioner sought to declare the rejection of his claim for increased rates of HSD oil as illegal and arbitrary. The court found the claim barred by limitation and noted that the petitioner could pursue other legal remedies. (Paras 2, 12)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 18 – The claim for payment of work done is subject to a three-year limitation period, starting from when the work is completed. (Paras 8, 12)
Facts of the case: The petitioner challenged the rejection of his claim for Rs.13,42,325/- for increased HSD oil rates for a bus hired from 2001 to 2005, asserting the decision was arbitrary and illegal. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court: The court found that the petitioner's claim was barred by limitation and that disputed questions of fact precluded the exercise of writ jurisdiction. (Paras 12, 13)
Issues: Whether the petitioner's claim was barred by limitation and if the court should exercise jurisdiction given the disputed facts. (Paras 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the claim was barred by limitation under Article 18 of the Limitation Act and that the presence of disputed facts warranted declining jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Paras 12)
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with liberty to pursue other remedies.
ORDER :
(Surepalli Nanda, J.) :
Heard Sri Ponampelli Ravi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings No.01/259 (15) /2010 RM/Khammam dated 28.08.2010 of the 2nd respondent rejecting the petitioner’s claim to the tune of Rs.13,42,325/- and payment of the same towards increased / hiked rates HSD oil for the petitioner bus bearing No.AP 24 U 4464 plied on the route Khammam - Pangidi as per clause 4 sub-clause 6 of hire agreement dated 17.05.2001 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the Rs.13,42,325/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and grant costs of the proceedings and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that, the impugned proceedings No.01/259(15)/2010 - RM /Khammam dated 28.08.2010 of respondent No.2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of the amounts towards increased/hiked rates of HSD oil of the petitioner bus bearing No.AP 24 4464 piled in the route from Khammam – Pangidi during the period of May, 2001 to May, 2005 as per clause 4 (6) of hire agreement dated 17.05.2001 is illegal and arbitrary and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of relief as prayed for in the present writ petition on the three grounds (i) All the payments made to the petitioner are in accordance to circular instructions issued by the Corporate Office from time to time on HSD increase/decrease, duly audited by the Accounts Officer, Khammam and Depot Manager, Khammam, and there is no amount pending against the petitioner. (ii) The plea of the petitioner is barred by the limitation since the petitioner disputed before this Court after lapse of five (5) years by filing the present writ petition. (iii) The specific case of the respondents is that the petitioner is not entitled for any amounts. On the other hand the specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for amounts which are due to be paid by the respondent-Corporation.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner specifically disputes the three contentions put-forth by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and contends that the petitioner is entitled for all the due amounts from the respondent Corporation as pleaded in the present writ petition and petitioner’s case is not barred by limitation, and the payments made to the petitioner are not as per circular guidelines in force as on date.
PERUSED THE RECORD:
6. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and in particular paragraph Nos.3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the said counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:
“3. It is respectfully submitted that as per Agreement of Clause 6, the revised rates of HSD were paid to the hire bus owner through regular bills as and when there is increase/hiked rates of HSD. There is no representation received from the hire bus owner regarding difference of HSD hike rates. It is respectfully that as and when HSD rates increased/decreased, on the very next bills, the arrears/recovery were implemented duly audited by the Accounts Officer, Khammam.
4. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner filed W.P.No.17534 of 2010 before the Hon’ble High Court with regard to the non-payment of increased rates of HSD Oil along with hire charges for the bus bearing No.AP 24 U 4464 given on hire to the An
