IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8503 of 2007 Between: Lanka Rama Rao … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, Krishna District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V. Venkateswara Rao for Kumari C. Sindhu Kumari Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri P. Satyanarayana Murthy SC for APSRTC The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8503 of 2007 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal having regard to the nature of the relief claimed in the writ petition. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare that the respondents have no power, authority or jurisdiction to interfere with the petitioner’s business of running fast food center near Auto Nagar Bus Depot, Vijayawada, in accordance with the licence granted by respondent No.4 and to declare proceedings dated 19.02.2007 issued by respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit goes to show that the licence was granted to the petitioner by respondent No.4 for running a fast food center in APSRTC Bus Depot from 21.04.2004 to 20.04.2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent No.3 has earlier permitted him to keep open his fast food center up to past mid night i.e., 12.30 a.m, he has again issued another proceedings on 03.01.2005 permitting him to keep open his fast food center till 2.00 a.m., and that the said permission was not extended beyond 06.08.2006. Having regard to the averment contained in the affidavit that the period of licence has expired on 20.04.2010, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. This order, however, does not preclude the petitioner from availing a fresh remedy, if he was granted a fresh licence and the grievance raised in the writ petition continues to subsist during the subsequent periods also. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.10917 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 14.06.2010. ES