ORDER Both these applications are filed by the National Highway Authority of India to vacate interim directions granted by this Court on 24-09-2008 and 20-11-2008 respectively. 2. Heard Sri V.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel of the writ petitioner and Sri Ram Babu for the vacate stay petitioner. 3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. 4. The petitioner is an advertisement agency, which claimed to have entered into an agreement with respondent No.2 Corporation for display of outdoor advertisement within the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation limits on 15-02-2008. The agreement appears to be valid upto November, 2010. On the ground that respondent No.1 has been interfering with the petitioners right to carryon advertisement work on certain parts of the Corporation, through which National Highway Nos.5 and 9 have been passing, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 5. The Court initially granted status quo on 24-09-2008 for a period of four weeks, which was subsequently extended from time to time. 6. The main plea of respondent No.1, as reflected in the two counter affidavits filed by it, its that as a result of amendment to Section 2 of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 1956 Act), with effect from 24-01-1997, the National Highways passing through the limits of the Municipal Corporation stand absolutely vested in the National Highway Authority. It is the further plea of respondent No.1 that Section 38 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (for short 2002 Act) prohibits any person other than a Highway Administration or a person authorized by such administration in this behalf to construct, install, shift, repair, alter or carry any poles, pillars, advertisement towers, transformers, cable wire, pipe, drain, sewer, canal, railway line, tramway etc. under or over any Highway except with the prior permission in writing of the Highway Administration for such purpose. It is the case of respondent No.1 that while erecting the advertisement boards and other similar displays, the petitioner has not obtained the permission of respondent No.1. 7. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the internal dispute between respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the former has been interfering with the petitioners right under the contract. Learned counsel placed reliance on order dated 03-12-2008 in W.P.No.9440 of 2001 in support of his contention that the petitioner is not liable to obtain permission. 8. 1 and 2, the former has been interfering with the petitioners right under the contract. Learned counsel placed reliance on order dated 03-12-2008 in W.P.No.9440 of 2001 in support of his contention that the petitioner is not liable to obtain permission. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for respondent No.1. 9. As pleaded by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, under Section 2 of the 1956 Act, both the National Highways, namely N.H.5 and N.H.9 passing through the limits of respondent No.2 stood vested in respondent No.1. Further, under Section 38 of the 2002 Act, permission is required for any person, other than Highway Administration to construct, install etc., the advertisement boards and towers. Admittedly, the petitioner has not obtained such permission. Unless respondent No.1 grants such permission, the petitioner is not entitled to display advertisement boards irrespective of whether it has entered into an agreement with respondent No.2 or not. A perusal of order dated 03-12-2008 in W.P.No.9440 of 2001, on which the petitioner placed reliance, shows that in the said case, contract was entered into prior to commencement of 2002 Act and having considered the said fact, this Court held that the said Act, which came into force with effect from 27-01-2005, cannot have retrospective operation. In this case, the petitioner entered into contract with respondent No.2 after coming into force of 2002 Act. 10. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner to continue the interim order. The same is, accordingly, vacated. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner from approaching respondent No.1 for permission to continue the advertisement Boards and if such an application is filed, respondent No.1 shall consider the same in the light of the provisions of 2002 Act without being influenced by this order. 11. W.V.M.P. Nos. 3933 of 2008 and 450 of 2010 are, accordingly, allowed and W.P.M.P.No.27322 of 2008 is dismissed.