APHC010141502016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.27072 OF 2016 Between: D. Prabhu Kishore ...PETITIONER AND The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director and another ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KASIM SAHEB Counsel for the Respondents: 1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA 2. E VENUGOPAL REDDY 3. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of 2nd respondent in not paying the damages and business loss of Rs.52,71,000/- (per day Rs.3000/-) to the petitioner from 10.06.2008 to 02.04.2013 (1757 days) i.e., from the date of lapse of agreement with 1st respondent Corporation to till date. SRK, J WP No.27072 of 2016 2 2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the owner of the vehicle viz., Bus bearing registration No.AP 26-W-2449 and he gave the said vehicle to 1st respondent – APSRTC on hire basis. He obtained insurance policy for the said vehicle from 2nd respondent – Insurance Company, which is valid up to 26.02.2006. While so, the vehicle was involved in an accident on 28.02.2005. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed an Award on 05.02.2008 and 2nd respondent, Insurance Company, has to pay the compensation to the victims. But, 2nd respondent did not pay the compensation amount to the victims. Though the agreement with 1st respondent Corporation was expired on 09.06.2008, the vehicle was not released and Clearance Certificate/No-objection Certificate was not issued, because of non-settlement of insured amounts to the victims by 2nd respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed WP No.6015 of 2013 seeking to direct 1st respondent Corporation to issue Clearance Certificate/No-objection Certificate and refund the due amount recovered from the petitioner. This Court, by an order dated 02.04.2013, disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the APSRTC to release the petitioner’s Clearance Certificate/No- objection Certificate along with the sums withheld within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, 1st respondent Corporation had issued the Clearance Certificate/No-objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner herein. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that because of negligence of 2nd respondent in paying the insured amounts to the claimants, the vehicle was not SRK, J WP No.27072 of 2016 3 in use from 10.06.2008 to 02.04.2013, hence he is entitled for damages for the said period. 3. Heard. Perused the record. 4. It is pertinent to state that the jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is essentially supervisory and discretionary in nature. The primary object of a Writ Petition is to ensure that statutory authorities and public bodies act within the bounds of their legal authority and in accordance with law. The Writ jurisdiction is not intended to serve as a substitute for a regular civil trial, particularly in matters that require detailed examination of disputed facts and assessment of evidence. A claim for damages necessarily involves adjudication on several factual aspects, such as the existence of a legal right, breach of that right, the nature and extent of loss suffered, causation between the alleged act and the damage, and the quantification of such loss. Determination of these issues ordinarily requires recording of oral and documentary evidence, cross-examination of witnesses, and a comprehensive evaluation of factual disputes. Such an exercise falls squarely within the domain of a competent Civil Court exercising original jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, does not ordinarily undertake the function of assessing damages or conducting a roving inquiry into disputed questions of fact. The writ proceedings are summary in nature and are confined to examining the legality, validity, or procedural propriety of the SRK, J WP No.27072 of 2016 4 impugned action. The power under Article 226 is meant to remedy public law wrongs and to enforce fundamental or statutory rights, but it is not designed to adjudicate private law claims for compensation that require detailed evidentiary analysis. Therefore, if the petitioner seeks compensation or damages arising out of the alleged wrongful act, the appropriate and efficacious remedy lies before the competent Civil Court. It is for the Civil Court to frame issues, permit parties to adduce evidence, and determine liability and quantum of damages in accordance with law. Consequently, this Court cannot undertake the exercise of assessing or awarding damages in the present writ proceedings, and the petitioner must approach the appropriate Civil Court for such relief. 6. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. It is needless to mention here that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court claiming damages, if he is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. Date:17.02.2026 Nsr SRK, J WP No.27072 of 2016 5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.27072 of 2016 Date:17.02.2026 Nsr