IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7720 of 2009 Between: Sunkara Lakshmi, D/o. Srinivasa Rao, R/o. D.No. 38-4-17, Western Street, Muralavari Street, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The Chief Commercial Manager, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 4 The APSRTC, Rep by its Regional Mnaager, W.G. Region, Eluru, West Godavari District. 5 The APSRTC, Rep by its Regional Mnaager, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned letter No. 01/437 (1) 09-ERL dated 18-3-2009, and set aside the same as illegal, unjust, discriminatory and bad in law and consequentially direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 9-3-2009 by preventing the neighbour shop stall owners from selling the commodities which are permitted to sell by the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ARAVIND KUMAR P.S Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the impugned letter No.01/437(1)/09-ERL dt.18.6.2009 and another letter issued by the respondents directing her to stop selling of unauthorized items like fruit juice, dairy products and ice creams etc., in her allotted shops despite her possessing the valid licence to sell the products till 2014. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the tender notification dated 15.1.2009 published in daily newspapers inviting tenders for running the stalls for various items in the bus complex in Eluru region including Eluru Bus Compelx, she submitted three separate tenders and since she became the highest bidder, three stalls were allotted to her for a period of six years and she also executed a deed of license. While so, the impugned letter dated 18.6.2009 is issued to her alleging that she is selling unauthorized items in her stalls and thus directed her not to sell the unauthorized items. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities have allowed other stall owners in the same complex to sell the items which are admittedly not given license to sell, on payment of additional license fee for selling those items but showing indiscriminate attitude in her case by issuing the impugned letter preventing her to sell the items in her stalls. It is also stated that she made a representation to the respondents ventiliating her grievances on 9.3.2009 and requested to recall the impugned orders but so far no orders have been passed on her representation. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that since the representation of the petitioner dated 9.3.2009 is already pending consideration with the respondents, instead of this Court going into the merits of the matter, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider and dispose of the said representation, for which course of action, the learned counsel for the petitioner also agreed. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 9.3.2009 expeditiously. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.17.4.2009 msv