IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.25078 of 2002 Between: Sri Balaji Auto Financiers, A Partnership firm Rep. by its Managing Partner, K.Venkateswara Choudary, R/o. D.No.1-5-509(5), 1st Floor, Balaji Colony, Tirupathi, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secretary, Road Transport Authority, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 M/s. T. Jayaraman, a partnership firm rep. by its Partner T. Jayaraman R/o H. No. 69, Peters Road, Royapattams, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. 4 Sri Venkateswarulu S/o Venkataswamy R/o H. No. 7-95-7, Santhi Nagar, Mutyala Reddy Palli Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dt. 14-10-2002, & 8-11-2002 in R.No.56776/B4/2002, thereby rejecting issue of fresh registration certificate in favour of the petitioner for goods vehicle No. AP 16 W 3078 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and offends Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and also contravenes the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder and set aside the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue fresh registration certificate in favour of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. FOR TRANSPORT MR. V. RAGHUNATH The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.25078 of 2002 ORDER: None appears for the petitioner. Due to efflux of time, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 10th June, 2009. IBL