1 APHC010764432014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 13524/2014 Between: 1. A. SUDHA SRINIVAS, VIZIANAGARAM DT., REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER A. SAI VARA PRASAD, S/O. LATE GOVARDHANA RAO, AGED 63 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O. DOOR NO.12-12-10, JAGADAMBA NAGAR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, APSRTC, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, NORTH EAST COASTAL REGION, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. E MARUTHI RAJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARUN KUMAR LATHKER(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: 2 ORAL ORDER: No representation on behalf of the Writ Petitioner. 2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under: “For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 26-02-2014 for refund of the amount to which the petitioner is entitled to in respect of his Bus bearing No.AP.31 TU 2248 as per the Hire Agreement dated 06-08-2012 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents herein to refund the amount to the petitioner in respect of the said bus as per the representation of the petitioner dated 26- 02-2014 forthwith; and pass such other or further orders.” 3. This Court, vide Interim Order dated 28.04.2014 in W.P.M.P.No.16895 of 2014, had passed the following Order: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has leased out the bus to the respondent Corporation and the same is valid till 20.06.2014 and he has paid certain amount towards permit fees and insurance and that the petitioner made an application on 26.02.2014 to the 3rd respondent for refund of the said amount. Till date, no orders are passed. In view of the same, there shall be an interim direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26.02.2014 and take action accordingly within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 4. It transpires from record that the Respondents have filed Counter Affidavit on 24.06.2014 which indicates that the Petitioner has submitted the Representation for issuing the Certificate for running the buses in Srikakulam Region and accordingly, Respondents have issued a Letter to the RTA to this effect but the Petitioner has failed to pursue the matter and had failed to get 3 the required Certificate and change of address. This has been stated in para 4 of the Counter Affidavit. 5. Having taken note of the Interim Order date 28.04.2014 (extracted supra) and also having taken note of the Counter Affidavit dated 24.06.2014, this Court is of the opinion that the cause would not survive in the matter. However, in terms of the Interim Order of this Court dated 28.04.2014, if the Petitioner has submitted a Representation, the Respondent Authorities are free to dispose of the said Representation in accordance with law. 6. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:05.01.2026 Vns