IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1011 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04.07.2007 in W.P.NO.23480 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: T. Sekhar, S/o. T. Venkataramaiah, R/o. Ramatheertham Village, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ...APPELLANT AND The Regional Transport Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1011 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Transport. At their request, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for disposal. The appellant, who claims to be a driver possessing Heavy Driving License, ﬁled the Writ Petition, inter alia, seeking a Mandamus assailing the impugned order of the respondent dated 09.11.2000 cancelling his driving license on the ground that he misrepresented the authorities. After taking into consideration the submissions made and on perusal of the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondent, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition having found that there is dereliction and negligence on both the sides. The appellant did not come out with true facts and misrepresented the authorities. Further, the authorities as well did not follow the due procedure before granting and cancelling the license. In view of the same, the order of cancellation of license is upheld by imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the appellant. Hence the appeal. Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, we are of the view that since there is no serious denial or otherwise in regard to the main point raised, it is very diﬃcult for this Court to interfere with the observations or ﬁndings of the learned Single Judge or to support the case of the appellant. However, this would not bar for making any fresh application by the appellant, which would be considered and disposed of after following due procedure. Hence, we do not ﬁnd any merits in the appeal. The Writ Appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to apply for fresh license and the same will be considered by the authorities after following due procedure under law. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J) 23rd September 2008 RRB