ORDER Petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to pay hire charges in respect of bus bearing No. AP o3/U 3929 hired by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (RTC, for short), for plying the bus on the route, from Chitttoor to Eguvakanikapuram, which was allegedly not paid. The reason for nonpayment of hire charges for the period from 15-6-2003 to 31-7-2003 is alleged refund of a sum of Rs.90,688/- towards excess hire charges in respect of bus bearing No.TN 33/E 6363 belonging to fourth respondent, which was engaged by RTC during the period from 7-2-1999 to 6-2-2001. 2. The fact of the matter, which is not in dispute and forms essential background to solve the dispute, is as follows. In furtherance of their policy, RTC hired buses from private owners to ply on nationalized routes. For the purpose of plying bus in one such route, namely, Chittoor to Eguvakanikapuram, tenders were invited. Fourth respondent was successful bidder. An agreement was entered into with him on 5-2-1999 whereunder fourth respondent was required to ply bus on the route for a distance of 290 KM for the period from 7-2-1999 to 6-2-2001. Fourth respondent agreed to ply bus bearing No.TN 33/E 6363. Second respondent issued a notice on 1-12-2000 requiring fourth respondent to replace the said bus with later model bus. He was unable to do so. Therefore, fourth respondent introduced petitioner to RTC and by letter dated 2-2-2001 sought permission to change ownership. RTC permitted the same.Petitioner therefore entered into agreement with RTC on 20-2-2001 agreeing to ply his bus bearing No.AP 03/U 3929 for the period from 23-2-2001 to 22-2-2004 on the route referred to herein above. 3. It appears that officials of RTC conducted route survey on 26-4-2001. They found exact route length at 267.2 KM and not 290 Km and that there is variation of 22.8 KM. By that time hire charges were paid to petitioner for the period during which his bus was plied and also to fourth respondent during which he plied bus No.TN 33/E 6363. Therefore third respondent issued notice dated 4-8-2001 to petitioner for refund of Rs.10,397/- paid as excess hire charges for 22.8 KM for the relevant period of petitioner's contract. This amount was recovered in three instalments. 4. Therefore third respondent issued notice dated 4-8-2001 to petitioner for refund of Rs.10,397/- paid as excess hire charges for 22.8 KM for the relevant period of petitioner's contract. This amount was recovered in three instalments. 4. On 3-9-2001, third respondent issued a notice to fourth respondent demanding Rs.90,688/- which was allegedly paid as excess hire charge for 22.8 KM. When he did not pay the said amount, third respondent issued notice dated 8-4-2002 to petitioner demanding the said amount. As the amount was not paid, hire charges for the period from 15-6-2003 to 31-7-2003 for the hired bus No.AP 03/U 3929 was not paid. On this cause of action, present writ petition is filed. 5. This Court heard learned Counsel for petitioner, who contends that when excess hire charges were paid in respect of fourth respondent's bus No. TN 33/E 6363, demanding the said amount from petitioner who plied bus No. AP 03/U 3929 is illegal and arbitrary. He placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court in K. Venkata Reddy v. A.P.S.R. T.C." in respect of his contention. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for RTC relies on a communication dated 2-2-2001 sent by fourth respondent wherein he alleged that he constituted partnership with petitioner and therefore he is willing to replace old bus No.TN 33/E 6363 with new bus. Learned Standing Counsel justifies the action of RTC contending that when petitioner was running the bus in partnership with fourth respondent, collection of excess amount paid towards hire charges is proper. 6. A perusal of communication of fourth respondent dated 2-2-2001 would show that while admitting that bus No. TN 33/E 6363 is registered in his name, fourth respondent alleged that he and petitioner are running the bus as partners. This is belied by the very agreement dated 5-2-1999 entered into by fourth respondent with RTC represented by second respondent. In the said agreement (a copy of which is annexed to writ petition), fourth respondent describes himself as proprietor and owner of bus No. TN 33/E 6363 and it is nowhere mentioned that the bus belongs to firm allegedly constituted by petitioner and fourth respondent. Therefore, no evidentiary value can be attached to the letter of fourth respondent dated 2-2-2001. Furthermore, a perusal of notice dated 8-4-2002 issued by third respondent to petitioner would belie any contention that petitioner was running old bus in partnership with fourth respondent. Therefore, no evidentiary value can be attached to the letter of fourth respondent dated 2-2-2001. Furthermore, a perusal of notice dated 8-4-2002 issued by third respondent to petitioner would belie any contention that petitioner was running old bus in partnership with fourth respondent. The said letter reads as under. A.P.S.R.T.C. N.01/359(6)/2001-CTR.2 0/0. the Deport Manager, Chittoor, 2 : Dt. 8-4-2002 NOTICE Sub: Hire Bus - Audit of hire charges paid to owner of Hire Bus No. AP 03U 6363 operated on the route Chittoor to Eguvakanikapuram - Recovery of excess amount paid - Present owner of the route bus - Orders issued - Reg. Ref: (1) RM/TPT Order No. 01/259 (19)/01, dt. 4-5-2001. (2) RMITPT Lr.No. B2/359(1 )/01-AD, dt. 23-7-2001. *** Regional Manager, Tirupati in the order vide reference 151 cited has informed that there is a variation of 22.8 KM in route length of Chittoor to Eguvakanikapuram route in which the bus No. AP 03U 6363 belongs to Sri V.G.Swamy, Hire bus owner was operated on hire basis. The variation of 22.8 KM is between the KM as per the allotment order and the KM arrived at based on the joint route survey and the Regional Manager, Tirupati had directed to recover the excess amount of hire charges paid to the Owner. After pre-audit by Accounts Officer, Tirupati had directed to recover the excess amount of hire charges paid to the Owner. After pre-audit by Accounts Officer, Tirupati the refundable amount repayable to the corporation is arrived as Rs.90,688/as informed by the Regional Manager, Tirupati vide reference 2nd cited and advised to collect the excess paid amount from the owner. Since, you have purchased the above said hire bus to ply on the same route on hire basis w.e.f. 23-2-2001 and at present you are the owner of the Hire bus No. AP03U 3929 operating on the outre Chittoor to Eguvakanikapuram and it is decided to recover the excess hire charges of Rs.90,688/- from your end. Therefore, you are hereby advised to pay the excess amount of Rs.90,688/paid to the bus owner of AP 03U 6363. Depot Manager: Chittoor 7. A plain reading of the above letter would show that nowhere third respondent proceeded as if old bus was owned by firm consists of petitioner and fourth respondent. Indeed admittedly amount of Rs 90,668/paid as excess hire charges is in respect of bus No. TN 33/E 6363. Depot Manager: Chittoor 7. A plain reading of the above letter would show that nowhere third respondent proceeded as if old bus was owned by firm consists of petitioner and fourth respondent. Indeed admittedly amount of Rs 90,668/paid as excess hire charges is in respect of bus No. TN 33/E 6363. In that view of the matter, petitioner cannot be made liable to pay excess amount, which was allegedly paid to fourth respondent for running bus No. TN 33/E 6363. 8. In K. Venkata Reddy (supra), this Court considered a question in similar set of facts. The writ petition was allowed observing as under. When the said defect was detected in the joint survey conducted by the Corporation and it was concluded that the distance of the above route to the petitioner directing him to pay excess hire charges of Rs. 14,023/- paid for the period from 23-2-2001 to 4-8-2001, petitioner complied with the said direction and paid the said amount also. However, for the period for which he did not ply the bus and for the lapses on the part of the fourth respondent, it is not known as to how the Corporation can fix the liability on the petitioner, as if the petitioner and the fourth respondent belong to a partnership firm. Except the fact that the petitioner was introduced by the fourth respondent to the Corporation, petitioner has nothing to do with any of the activities of the fourth respondent. For all purposes, the agreement entered into by the petitioner with the Corporation on 22-2-2001 is a fresh agreement to ply the bus in the above route and as he refunded the excess hire charges paid to him for the period from 23-2-2001 to 4-8-2001, in my considered view, he is not liable to pay the alleged excess amount for the period prior to 22-2-2001. It is only the fourth respondent, who is liable to refund the excess amount to the Corporation. In stead of proceeding against him, the Corporation issued notice dated 3-9-2001 fixing the liability on the petitioner. 9. When petitioner was introduced by fourth respondent for the purpose of changing bus, RTC entered into new contract with petitioner on 20-2-2001. It is only the fourth respondent, who is liable to refund the excess amount to the Corporation. In stead of proceeding against him, the Corporation issued notice dated 3-9-2001 fixing the liability on the petitioner. 9. When petitioner was introduced by fourth respondent for the purpose of changing bus, RTC entered into new contract with petitioner on 20-2-2001. When there was such a novation between the parties by reason of which one of the original parties was excluded from the contract, any obligation that would arise under old contract can be enforced only against person who entered into contract and not against person who entered into new contract. In that view of the matter, RTC has no justification to withheld amounts payable to petitioner for the period during which he plied his bus on the notified route as per the agreement dated 20-2-2001. 10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, giving liberty to APSRTC to approach against fourth respondent if so advis8d. Respondents 1 to 3 shall pay costs of writ petition to petitioner. ~7