C IMAN v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
Cause title
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 6106/2025 Between:
1. C IMAN, S/O R RAJA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O D.NO.27-94, 6TH CROSS, RAM NAGAR COLONY, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT, ROADS AND BUILDINGS (PUBLIC TRANSPORT) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. ANDHRA PRADESH TRANSPORT STATE CORPORATION, (APSRTC),VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ROAD
3. THE DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORT OFFICER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
4. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD CHITTOOR CORPORATION, CHITTOOR, TRANSPORT DISTRICT.
5. THE DEPOT MANAGER DEPOT1, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR 2 DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S)
: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly issuing proceedings No. C1 /T2/122(2)/2021 -RM(T)/DPTO dated 12.02.2025 terminating the license No. T2/122(2)/2021- RM(T) dt.18.02.2021 of the Petitioner which is issued to run the business of Sweets and Bakery stall at OS No.2, as being illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently set aside the No.C1/T2/122(2)/2021-RM(T)/DPTO dated 12.02.2025 proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent and pass Respondent the 3rd IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may proceedings No.C1/T2/122(2)/2021- be pleased RM(T)/DPTO dated 12.02.2025 and permit him to run the shop, pending the disposal of the Writ Petition and pass to suspend Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. AJAY KUMAR KANAPARTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)
2. GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following: 3
ORDER:
Operative part
Ms.D.H.S.Sandhya, learned counsel representing Sri Ajay Kumar Kanaparthi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and has become infructuous. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Date: 18th June, 2026 RKS _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 18 Jun 2026. The bench was RAVI CHEEMALAPATI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.