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 N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8411 of 2009 Between: 1 V.M. ABUZAR, S/O. V.MD. Yunus, R/o. D.No. 16-12-1, Tippu Khan Street, Hindupur, Ananthapur District. 2 Smt. C.V.Lakshmi, W/o. C.V. Chalapathi Rao, R/o. D.No. 17-4-6A, Upstairs, R.P.G.T.Road, Hindupur, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Regional Transport Authority, Ananthaur, Ananthapur District, Rep by its Secretary. 2 Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secrtary, Regioal Trnsport Authority,Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. .....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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably one in the nature of Writ of Manamus, declaring the action of the respondents herein in not considering the petitioners Joint Application dated 30.05.2008 in R.No.2645/C1/2008 for the transfer of Stage Carriage Permit PSP No.8/2001 in respect of Stage Carriage Bus KA. 15/4302 plying on the town service route-Malagur to Hindupur Municipal Bus Stand as arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the said application of the petitioners within 2 weeks from today. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.E.MARUTHI RAJA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following: O R D E R:- The petitioners assert that the 1st petitioner was granted a stage carriage permit PSP No.8/2001 to operate his bus bearing Registration No. AP02 V1362 and permit was renewed from time to time. While so, the petitioners state that owing to some personal problems, the petitioner intended to transfer the permit in favour of the 2nd petitioner and accordingly, both the petitioners made a joint application dated 30.5.2008 to the 1st respondent seeking transfer of the permit in favour of the 2nd petitioner, and during the pendency of the application, the petitioner replaced his bus with another vehicle bearing No.KA15 4302, as per the Endorsement dated 20.09.2008 made by the 2nd respondent, and it is their grievance that the 1st respondent has not considered and passed any orders thereon so far. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing for the respondents. Since the joint application dated 30.05.2008 said to have been made by the petitioners is pending consideration before the 1st respondent, both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport have agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondents are directed to consider the joint application dated 30.05.2008 said to have been made by the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 23rd April, 2009 bcj