ORDER R. Subhash Reddy, J. 1. This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, to declare the action of 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings No. 01/2(23)/2010-PLKD, dated 25.11.2011, ordering to recover an amount of Rs. 1,36,799/- at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per fortnight, from the bills payable to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. Originally, the husband of the petitioner was the owner of the bus bearing No. AP-30-V-7788. He had hired the said bus to the respondent-Corporation, by entering into an agreement to that effect. During the subsistence of said agreement, the husband of the petitioner died, and hence, the Corporation has entered into a fresh agreement with the petitioner for hiring the said bus for a period of four years i.e. from 21.04.2010 to 19.01.2014. On 22.05.2010, the bus met with an accident at Madhurawada, when it was plying on Palakonda-Visakhapatnam route, and in the said accident, the Conductor had suffered grievous injuries and was hospitalized from 23.05.2010 to 20.02.2011. Further, at the time of accident, a sum of Rs. 8,007/- was lost from the custody of Conductor. During the period of hospitalization, the Conductor was granted medical leave as provided under APSRTC Employees' (Leave) Regulations 1963, framed under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, and as per Regulation 46(4) of the said Regulations, during the leave period, a sum of Rs. 1,28,792/- was paid to the Conductor towards salary. 2. On the ground that the petitioner is owner of the bus and the said accident resulted in loss to the tune of Rs. 1,28,792/- towards salary paid to the Conductor of the Corporation during the period of his medical leave i.e. from 23.05.2010 to 20.02.2011, and a further sum of Rs. 8,007/- was lost from the custody of Conductor due to accident, respondents have started recovering a total sum of Rs. 1,36,799/- at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per fortnight, from the bills payable to the petitioner, and by the time of filing this writ petition, an amount of more than Rs. 1,00,000/- was already recovered, but on filing this writ petition, this Court granted interim orders on 14.03.2012, and it is stated that thereafter, no further amount is recovered. 3. 1,36,799/- at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per fortnight, from the bills payable to the petitioner, and by the time of filing this writ petition, an amount of more than Rs. 1,00,000/- was already recovered, but on filing this writ petition, this Court granted interim orders on 14.03.2012, and it is stated that thereafter, no further amount is recovered. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that as the bus in question was insured and was hired to the respondent-Corporation, as per the terms and conditions of agreement, it is not open to the Corporation to recover any amount either paid towards salary to the Conductor during the period of leave or lost from the hands of said Conductor when the accident had taken place. It is stated that in view of the terms of agreement, the bus was under the total control of the respondent-Corporation, and hence, for all practical purposes, the Corporation is to be treated as the owner of bus, therefore, there is no reason or justification for recovering any amount from the bills payable to the petitioner. 4. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. While denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated in the counter that in the accident, the service Conductor of APSRTC had suffered injuries and was hospitalized from 23.05.2010 to 20.02.2011, due to which, the Corporation had suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 1,36,799/-, as it had to pay an amount of Rs. 1,28,792/- towards salary to the service Conductor during the period of his medical leave and an amount of Rs. 8,007/- was lost from the custody of Conductor at the time of accident. Further, referring to clause 5(iv) of the agreement, it is stated that as the aforesaid loss was caused to the Corporation only due to the negligence of the Driver of the hired bus of the petitioner herein, the Corporation is entitled to recover such amount from the petitioner. It is further stated that though a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, as there was no response from her, the recovery was ordered. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation. 6. It is further stated that though a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, as there was no response from her, the recovery was ordered. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that there is no clause in the agreement, empowering the respondent-Corporation to recover any amount from the bills payable to the petitioner, either towards the salary paid to the Conductor of the Corporation during leave period or towards the amount lost in the accident. It is further submitted that in view of the agreement entered into, the bus in question was in the custody of the respondent-Corporation, and hence, during the subsistence of the agreement, the Corporation shall be treated as owner of the bus for all practical purposes. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum and others (1) 2011 (2) An.W.R. 757 (SC) : 2011 (7) SCJ 40 : (2011) 8 SCC 1432. 7. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation that the Driver of the hired bus was employed by the petitioner, and due to his negligence only, the bus met with an accident, causing loss to the tune of Rs. 1,36,799/- to the Corporation, as it had to pay an amount of Rs. 1,28,792/- towards salary to the Conductor during the period of medical leave and an amount of Rs.8,007/- was lost from the custody of the Conductor at the time of accident, and therefore, the Corporation has rightly initiated proceedings for recovering such amount from the bills payable to the petitioner. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation, particularly, clause 5 of the agreement. It is not in dispute that petitioner is the owner of the bus in question and it is hired to the respondent-Corporation for specific period, under an agreement to that effect. The Conductor, who was on duty at the time of accident, is the person employed by the respondent-Corporation and he was in regular service of the Corporation. It is not in dispute that petitioner is the owner of the bus in question and it is hired to the respondent-Corporation for specific period, under an agreement to that effect. The Conductor, who was on duty at the time of accident, is the person employed by the respondent-Corporation and he was in regular service of the Corporation. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (supra), when the bus belonging to a third party was hired by the Corporation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered various aspects with regard to liability of the owner for payment of compensation and also the scope of transfer of insurance when the vehicle is hired to the Road Transport Corporation etc., and held that when a bus is hired by the Corporation and is run by it on the routes which it decides, the Corporation would become the owner of such bus for that specific period. It is further held that even though the vehicle is hired to the Corporation for a specific period, if the vehicle is insured at the instance of the original owner, it is deemed that such transfer of vehicle includes transfer of insurance policy, and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability of paying compensation. The aforesaid decision fully supports the case of the petitioner. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the service Conductor, who suffered grievous injuries in the accident, was a regular employee of the Corporation and was deputed to work on the route specified by the Corporation. Further, a perusal of the agreement makes it clear that the Corporation is not empowered to recover the wages which are paid to its employees on account of salary for the leave period. As it is held in the decision referred above that for all practical purposes the Corporation is to be treated as owner of the vehicle, it cannot recover any amount from the petitioner even towards the compensation determined by the Tribunals. From a perusal of various clauses in the agreement, it is clear that the respondent-Corporation is not empowered to recover from the petitioner, either the amount paid by it towards salary during the medical leave period of its employee or any loss of cash during the accident. From a perusal of various clauses in the agreement, it is clear that the respondent-Corporation is not empowered to recover from the petitioner, either the amount paid by it towards salary during the medical leave period of its employee or any loss of cash during the accident. In the absence of any such power, and in view of the fact that the agreement was in force during the relevant period and the vehicle was in the custody of the Corporation, there is no justification on the part of the Corporation for recovering any amount from the bills payable to the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings dated 25.11.2011, issued by the 3rd respondent in Proceedings No. 01/2(23)/2010-PLKD, is quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to repay the amount recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the above proceedings, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. As a sequel, W.V.M.P. No. 1757 of 2012 and W.P.M.P. No. 8883 of 2012 shall stand closed.