IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24583 of 2006 Between: Syed Bin Mohammad, s/o Mohammad Bin Salam, r/o 19-2-20, Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad East Zone, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents and their subordinates in not permitting the petitioner herein to carry Gross Vehicle Weight of 25,000 Kgs. as mentioned in the Item No.IV of the Schedule appended to G.O.728(E) dated 18-10- 1996 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport (Transport Wing) New Delhi in the petitioner's Heavy Goods Rigid Vehicles fitted with 10.00 tyres, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to carry Gross Vehicles Weight of 25,000 kgs. in his Goods Vehicles bearing registration Nos.AP 12 U 2887 and AP 21 T 3651 forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: None The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSITCE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24583 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents and their subordinates in not permitting the petitioner to carry gross vehicle weight of 25,000 Kgs as mentioned in item No.IV of the Schedule appended to G.O.Ms.No.728 (E) dated 18.10.1996 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport (Transport Wing), New Delhi, in his heavy goods rigid vehicles fitted with 10.00 tyres, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. It is therefore reasonable to presume that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting his cause in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed in default. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition in default, WPMP.No.31438 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.02.2008 ES To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies