IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20551 of 2000 Between: 1 G.Sarada, W/o. Sri G.V. Sanyasi Raju, R/o. H.No. 24-2/1-36A, New Colony, Bondilagudem, Vizianagaram District. 2 G.V. Sanyasi Raju, S/o. Late G.S.N.Raju R/o. H.No. 24-2/1-34, New Colony, Bondilagudem, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER (S) AND 1 The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Rep by its Presiding Officer, City Civil Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Transport Authority, Rep by its Secretary, Vizianagaram District. 3 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad. 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 a Writ, or Order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in enteraining the R.P.No.80/99 ﬁled by the 3rd respondent is without jurisdiction, illegal and improper with a direction to the 1st respondent to dismiss the R.P. No. 80/99 and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and just in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.20551 of 2000 ORDER: Sri T.Venkataramana, Learned Counsel for the petitioners would fairly state that the revision preferred by the A.P.S.R.T.C. against the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Vizianagaram dated 6.7.1996 granting pucca stage carriage permit to the petitioners herein is pending before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Learned counsel would contend that A.P.SR.T.C. is just another transport operator like the petitioner herein, that it does not have the locus standi to challenge grant of permits to other transport operators and, apprehending that this question may not be decided by the Tribunal, the petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Since the petitioners herein are parties to the revision proceedings, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 to preempt an order being passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on the premise that the Tribunal may not adjudicate their contention that the A.P.SR.T.C. does not have locus-standi to question grant of permit to other transport operators. There is no basis for the apprehension expressed by the Learned Counsel. Since a revision petition is pending before the Tribunal before which all questions, both on fact and law, can be raised, I see no reason to examine this question in the present writ petition. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________ 28-8-2008 asp