IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No: 9221 of 2002 Between: 1 V. Nagamalleswara Rao, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, R/o. 20-49-4, Gandhinagar, Chilakalapudi, Krishna District. 2 Ch. Subrahmanyeswara Rao, S/o. Ch. Kakulla Swamy, R/o. 20-486, Chilakalapudi, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 Regional Transport Authority, Rep. by its Secretary, Krishna. 3 The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the file of the 3rd Respondent herein and quash the orders of the 3rd Respondent herein passed in R.P.85/99, dated 18-12-2001 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.ARIFULLAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No: 9221 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an order dated 18.12.2001 passed in R.P.No.85/99 wherein the order passed by the primary authority i.e. Regional Transport Authority, Krishna at Vijayawada, permitting the existing operators for the variation of route as Saradanagar to Manginapudi Revu via Inakudurupet, Rajupet, Koneru Centre, R.T.C. Bus stand, Ramanaidupet Cross roads, Chilakalpudi Railway Station, Tavisapudi and Reddygudem was set aside. It appears the petitioner herein was granted town service permit from Saradanagar to Manginapudi Revu for 17 KMs. However, in view of introduction of one way system due to traffic congestion the petitioner sought for curtailment of the existing route to an extent of 1.6 KMs from Koneru Centre to Inakudurupeta and sought for deviation by extending the route to an extent of 2.3 KMs. The same was allowed by the primary authority. Aggrieved thereby, R.P.no.85 of 1999 was filed by the first respondent herein. The revisional authority after elaborate consideration of the order passed by the primary authority as well as various judgments in this regard, came to the conclusion that the revision requires to be allowed since the variation is not permissible under law. Be that as it may, Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, stated that since 2006, the licence of the petitioner is not renewed and, under those circumstances, the cause in the writ petition does not survive and further adjudication in the writ petition has become infructuous and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though as on today the writ petition has become infructuous, the petitioner is entitled to file an application seeking renewal of the licence or seeking a fresh permit. Under those circumstances, while dismissing the writ petition as infructuous, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the competent authority and seek fresh town service permit and, on filing such application, the competent authority shall, after hearing all the concerned parties, dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such application, as per law. No order as to costs. ------------------------ C.V.RAMULU, J 8th June 2009 CVRK