Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the permit of the petitioner had been cancelled, under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Rule 172(6) of the Tamilnadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, with effect from 23.6.2003. Therefore, the application of the petitioner, dated 31.12.2011, for the renewal of the mini bus permit, as prayed for by the petitioner, cannot be granted, at this stage. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not refuted the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. In fact, he had submitted that an appeal had been filed against the order cancelling the mini bus permit of the petitioner, before the appropriate authority. 4. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, since, no further orders are necessary, the writ petition stands closed. No costs.