IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4283 of 2000 Between: Gnyana Saraswathi Integrated Educational Institutions Society, Rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent, Sri P.Prabhakar Rao, S/o. Sri P.S.N.Murthy, R/o. Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, RTC X Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Picket, Jubilee Bus Stand, Secunderabad. 3 The Divisional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad City Region, Hyderabad. 4 The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education, P.O.Box 34, Saifabad, Hyderabad-(Dismissed for default, as per Court Order dt. 8/9/2003 as against R4) .....RESPONDENTS 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; (a) declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing the concessional bus passes/route passes to the students of B.C.A. and P.G.D. MISCA courses studying in the petitioner colleges and also (b) declare the Clause 9 of the permission granted by the A.P.State Council of Higher Education dated 18-10-1998 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (c) Direct the respondents to issue concessional bus pass/route pass to the students studying in B.C.A. and P.G.D. MISCA courses in the petitioner college forthwith and pass such further and other orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. V.T.M. Prasad, SC for APSRTC The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: When this writ petition came up for hearing on 30.6.2005, there was no representation on either side and, accordingly, it was adjourned to 5.7.2005, under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today, there is no representation on either side. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. 5.7.2005 CVM To, 1. 2 CD copies.