IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3205 of 2009 Between: Mohammed Mahmood Ali Qureshi, S/o. Mohammed Ahmed Ali Qureshi R/o. H.No.18-8-244/D/78/A, Al-Kaseri Street (North), Fateh Shah Nagar, Edi-Bazar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation , rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad. .....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/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not introducing bus services to Al-Kaseri Street, Fateh Shah Nagar, Edi-Bazar, Hyderabad, as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India, and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATA MAYUR Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that the respondents introduced A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus services on route No. 81A from Charminar to Al-Kaseri Street, Edi Bazar West (New Municipal Street) in the month of January, 1999 enabling the residents of the localities to undertake comfortable journey, but after a month, the respondents stopped the bus service on the ground that the buses have to move in narrow lanes causing traffic congestion and inconvenience to the public and assured that in their place they would introduce Mini Buses. Then, the petitioner made a representation dated 10.1.1999 requesting the respondents to commence service of A.P.S.R.T.C. Mini Buses, but his grievance is that so far the respondents have not introduced Mini Buses nor passed any orders on his representation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Whether or not to ply Mini Buses on the route in question, is a matter for the respondents to decide, which normally is decided taking into consideration the demand of the public, availability of busses, economic viability etc., and such decision to be taken by the respondents, being a policy decision, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not interfere in such matters, and much less give directions to the respondent-Corporation to introduce Mini Bus Services. However, having regard to the fact that the representation dated 10.01.2009, said to have been made by the petitioner, is pending consideration before the respondent-Corporation, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondent-Corporation is directed to consider the representation dated 10.1.2009 said to have been made by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, expeditiously.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 19th February, 2009 bcj