THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9358 of 2007 Date: 17.04.2008 Between: M.Vijay Bhaskar … Petitioner AND The A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by Managing Director, Hyderabad. And others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Venkateswarlu Posani Counsel for the respondents: Sri P.Vinayaka Swamy HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9358 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare notice dated 23.4.2007 issued by respondent No.3 and tender notification dated 16.4.2007 issued by respondent No.2 with respect to item No.1, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was allotted licence for running cycle stand business in open space at Kurnool Bus Station on a monthly rent of Rs.38,000/- for a period of four years from 16.6.2003 to 15.6.2007 under licence dated 20.6.2003. Based on circular dated 10.10.1996, notice dated 23.4.2007 was issued by respondent No.2 informing the petitioner that the existing licence shall be deemed to have been terminated at the end of the licence period and the petitioner was called upon to vacate the premises and hand over the same to the Depot Manager, kurnool-I depot on or before 15.6.2007 and settle his accounts. Before the said notice was issued, respondent No.3 issued show cause notice dated 25.7.2006 whereunder the petitioner was called upon to file his explanation against the proposal to collect penal rent. The petitioner claimed to have filed his explanation. At the hearing, Sri Posani Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause in the writ petition to the extent of the petitioner being asked to vacate the premises and finalisation of tenders in pursuance of the impugned tender notification does not survive, since the petitioner already vacated the premises and tenders were finalized. He however, contended that under the impugned notice dated 23.4.2007, the petitioner was called upon to settle the accounts and the said direction cannot be complied with by the petitioner unless respondent No.3 passes order on the explanation filed by the petitioner in pursuance of show cause notice dated 25.7.2006. Since, this grievance of the petitioner appears legitimate, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 to pass final orders on the show cause notice dated 25.7.2006 before insisting on the petitioner to settle the accounts. Subject to the above-observation, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.11945 of 2007 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:17.04.2008 mdaa