IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 13609 of 1998 BETWEEN: 1 M/s Best Surgical Industries, Rep. by its Partner Smt. M.S.G.Bhavani, H.No.8-2-693/2/55&56, Mithilanagar Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034. 2 Mrs. M.S.G. Bhavani, W/o Sri M.Shivaji, H.No.8-2-693/2/55, Mithilanagar Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034. 3 Mrs. Yojana, D/o Sri M.Shivaji, H.No.8-2-693/2/55, Mithilanagar Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034. 4 Mr. M.Shivaji S/o M. Suranna, H.No.8-2-693/2/55&56, Mithilanagar Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034. 5 Mr.M.Khadgopal, S/o Sri M.Shivaji, H.No.8-2-693/2/55&56, Mithilanagar Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, 2 UCO Bank, Rep by its Manager, M.G.Road Branch, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Central Act No.51 of 1993 and the provisions and particularly Section 21 and Constitution of first Respondent thereunder is null and void being contrary to Article 14, 21, 39-A of the Constitution of India and further declaring the proceedings of the first Respondent in O.A.No.1051 of 1995 including the demand notice dt. 29-4-1998 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.V.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.AJAYAKUMAR MR. A. RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL) The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no cause of action survives in the writ petition and seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. 2. Permission is accorded. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J January 23, 2009 DSK/KSH