IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 3984 of 2008 Between: O. Srinivasa Rao S/o Tirupathaiah R/o H. No. 10-4-78, Durjan Basti Kothagudem, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep by its Divisional Manager (Rural), Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 The Asst. Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Srinivasa Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V. Padmanabha Rao for C.Prakash Reddy(Sc for APSRTC) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 3984 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in considering representation dated 01.02.2008 submitted by the petitioner for extension of licence period for a further period of two years, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondents to extend his licence for a period of two years. Heard Sri Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Padmanabha Rao representing Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. In his affidavit, the petitioner pleaded that he was awarded with sanitary (Toilets) Maintenance of arrival and departure blocks at Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada for a period of one year from 02.03.2007 to 01.03.2008 on a monthly amount of Rs.1,10,618/-. According to him, as the term of the contract is coming to a close, he filed representation dated 01.02.2008 to consider his case for extension of lease in terms of Circular No.1/2004 OPD-C dated 26.02.2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said representation, the respondents are seeking to go ahead with fresh tender process. Since the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition is innocuous, namely, that the respondents may consider the representation filed by him, I do not see any reason to keep the writ petition pending. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner for extension of contract, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider representation dated 01.02.2008 filed by the petitioner for extension of licence period in terms of the abovementioned circular. This order, however, may not be treated as a mandate to the respondents to extend the licence period of the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.5201 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.02.2008 Note:- Issue CC by 29.02.2008 B/o. ES To 1.2CCs 2.2CD copies