IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 26657 of 2001 Between: Guduru Sundara Laxmi W/o Sundara Rami Reddy R/o Fathekhanpet, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secretary, R.T.A. Nellore. .....RESPONDENT 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 declaring the Memo No. 22279/A3/2001 dated 21-12-2001 issued by the respondent herein as arbitrary and illegal and further direct the respondent herein to allow the petitioner to replace the vehicle by another vehicle bearing registration No. TN-45/D-5859 without insisting for production of the record relating to the out-going vehicle and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.M.VINOBHA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No.22279/A3/2001, dated 21-12-2001, issued by the respondent, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to replace the vehicle by another vehicle bearing registration No.TN-45/D-5859 without insisting for production of the records relating to the out-going vehicle. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner also filed W.P.M.P. No.33744 of 2001, wherein he sought a direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner to replace the vehicle. From a perusal of the impugned Memo dated 21-12-2001, issued by the Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary, R.T.A, Nellore, it is averred that the petitioner was directed to produce the records pertaining to the outgoing vehicle i.e., TN 72 6699 immediately in view of the objection filed by the financers and for examination of her request for replacing the existing vehicle. On 28-12-2001 this Court while ordering Rule nisi, passed interim directions. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. Today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the interim order dated 28-12-2001, no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the interim order dated 28-12-2001 is made absolute and the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order dated 28-12-2001. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 23-04-2009 LSK