Orders Reserved on : 11.03.2026. Orders Pronounced on : 24.04.2026. Orders Uploaded on : 24.04.2026. APHC010065022026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 3843 of 2026 Between: 1. M. GANGI REDDY, S/O. M. SATYANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.15/113, BOAT OFFICE VEEDHI, DOWLAISWARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. A.P., ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, RTC HOUSE, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., WEST GODAVARI, ELURU. 4. THE DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORT OFFICER, A.P.S.R.T.C., WEST GODAVARI AT BHIMAVARAM. 5. THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., CORPORATE OFFICE, OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT, RTC HOUSE, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 6. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, A.P.S.R.T.C., ZONAL MANAGERS OFFICE, OPERATION DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA ZONE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 7. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ZONE-11, A.P.S.R.T.C., VIJAYAWADA. 2 8. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, O/O. THE DEPUTY CME/ZONE-LL, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 9. THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., NARSAPURAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S ARIFULLAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC 2. GP FOR TRANSPORT 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed against the Office Order dated 24.06.2025 of the 9th respondent directing the recovery of an amount of Rs.2,25,435/- and Rs.2,25,805/- from the petitioner on various grounds. The petitioner is also seeking a direction for refund of the amounts recovered so far. 2) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.K.Srinivas Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC. Perused the material on record. 3) The facts of the case, as set out in the affidavit in brief may be stated as follows – 4) APSRTC issued Tender Notification in the year 2007 inviting applications from private entrepreneurs for supply of various category / types of buses under hire scheme for operation on the identified roads. Pursuant to the said notification, one Mr. V.Mallikarjuna Rao submitted two applications in respect of Narsapuram to Rajahmundry route to ply vehicles as “Palle Velugu” service under hire scheme at Narsapuram Depot. As per the notification issued by the Corporation, the length of the route fixed for single is 82 KMs., for four singles total KMs is 328 KMs. His applications were accepted for the Narsapuram – Rajahmundry route for plying the busses with the vehicle total utilization as 328 KMs at the floor rate of Rs.12.49 ps., per KM. Accordingly, agreements were entered for a period of four years with effect from 17.10.2007 to 06.10.2011 in 4 respect of the Vehicle No.AP 37 Y 2477 and 17.10.2007 to 15.10.2011 in respect of the vehicle No.AP 37 Y 2453. However, he could not operate the two vehicles and on transfer of ownership, one Mr.M.V.V.S.Narayana operated the vehicles for some time. Subsequently, the ownership was transferred from the said Narayana to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner entered into an agreement dated 20.03.2018 for plying two vehicles / hire buses bearing registration No.AP 05 TF 1819 and AP 05 TF 1919 in the above said Narsapuram – Rajahmundry route. On completion of the said agreement, the petitioner entered into a fresh agreement dated 09.02.2024 for plying the said vehicles on the Narsapuram – Rajahmundry route for a period of three years i.e., upto 08.02.2027. In the said agreement the allotted daily vehicle utilization (VU) is mentioned as 328 KMs. After the petitioner entered into the said agreement dated 09.02.2024, the 7th respondent referring to a survey conducted on 18.01.2022 and revision of VU (Vehicle Utility) from 328 KMs., to 318 KMs., issued directions to recover the difference of amount from the hire bus owners due to the changes in the daily VU, revision of base hire rates and HSD oil top up utility from 18.01.2022. Subsequently, he also issued the Office Order dated 24.06.2025 impugned in the present Writ Petition. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions inter alia to the effect that the recovery of the amounts mentioned in the impugned proceedings retrospectively from 18.01.2022 is illegal and arbitrary. He 5 submits that right from the issuance of the initial notification in the year 2007 and the agreements entered pursuant to the notification issued in respect of the subject matter route, the distance was mentioned as 328 KMs. Even in the present agreement dated 09.02.2024, which is in operation, the daily VU is mentioned as 328 KMs., that in the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot be held responsible and no amounts can be recovered, much less with retrospective effect from 18.01.2022. He submits that the survey dated 18.01.2022 on the basis of which the amounts are sought to be recovered was conducted without any notice to the petitioner and also other hire bus operators and therefore no recoveries can be made with reference to the said survey. Further that subsequently on the request made by the bus operators, a survey of the route to Rajahmundry – Narsapuram was conducted on 30.09.2024 in the presence of the petitioner and admitting without conceding, the recoveries by taking the vehicle utility as 318 KMs from that date onwards, in respect of the existing agreement may be made. He also placed reliance on the decision of the learned Judge dated 12.08.2024 in W.P.No.11215 of 2023 & batch and seeks appropriate reliefs by declaring the recovery of amounts retrospectively as illegal, arbitrary etc. 6) On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel made submissions with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit. He submits that there is no dispute that in the two surveys conducted on 18.01.2022 and 30.09.2024 it was found that there is a reduction in the route length 6 i.e., from 82 KMs., to 79.5 KMs. In view of the same, the daily VU was reduced to 328 to 318 KMs., with effect from 18.01.2022 i.e., date of initial survey. He further submits that as the APSRTC had paid hire charges by taking the VU as 328 KMs as against 318 KMs., it is legally entitled to recover the excess amounts paid. He also submits that the decision in W.P.No.11215 of 2023 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In any event, the learned counsel submits that the recovery of excess amounts as the petitioner plied the vehicles in the route in question with VU of 318 KMs, is just, valid and cannot be found fault with. Making the said submissions, learned counsel urges for dismissal of the writ petition. 7) On an appreciation of the rival contentions and the material available on record, it is pertinent to note that it is not in dispute that in all the agreements in respect of the route Narsapuram – Rajahmundry the daily VU was stated as 328 KMs. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner even the latest agreement dated 09.02.2024 (EX.P3) reflects the same. It appears that at one point of time, concerned officers of the Corporation thought it appropriate to conduct a survey of the above mentioned route. From a reading of the Office Order dated 11.06.2024, it transpires that a route survey of Narsapuram – Rajahmundry was conducted on 18.01.2022 and on the basis of the same, the vehicle utilization was reduced from 328 to 318 KMs. If that be the case, this Court is at loss to understand as to why in the agreement dated 7 09.02.2024 the daily VU was mentioned as 328 KMs. Further on the basis of said survey dated 18.01.2022 and reduced VU, recoveries are sought to be made in respect of already concluded agreements, that too with retrospective effect and in the considered opinion of this Court, the same is not permissible. It is not the case of the Corporation that the petitioner / bus owner had wrongly mentioned the distance or the daily VU. It is the Corporation officials, in fact, who are responsible for the mistake committed by them and nothing is placed on record to show that action is taken against the erring officials. Be that as it may. 8) It is admitted position now that during the currency of the agreement, survey was conducted in the presence of the petitioner and it was found that the daily Vehicle Utilization is 318 KMs. Therefore, it is just and permissible for the Corporation to recover the excess amounts paid to the petitioner from 09.02.2024 only and no recoveries with effect from 18.01.2022 as contemplated in the impugned proceedings dated 24.06.2025 shall be made. The Corporation shall issue appropriate Office Order accordingly. 9) In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. 10) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. NINALA JAYASURYA,J Date:24.04.2026 Ssv 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 3843 of 2026 Date:24.04.2026 Ssv