IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 27th DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 W.P.No.104 of 2010 Between: M/s. Sai Sankara Theatre Partnership, rep. by its Managing Partner Varre Atchiraju and another ….PETITIONER(S) and State Bank of India, Y.D.Peta Branch, Narsipatnam and others …RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.104 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapanam, in proceeding with the O.A.No.70 of 2007 pending on its file. The case of the petitioners is that when the Tribunal passed an order dated 24.04.2009 in M.A.No.6 of 2009 in O.A.No.70 of 2007, aggrieved thereby, he preferred an appeal in M.A.No.144 of 2009 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai, along with a stay petition. Since there is no Presiding Officer in the Appellate Tribunal, they could not obtain any orders or any interim orders in the appeal. It is alleged that since they could not obtain any orders from the appellate Tribunal, the respondent-Bank is pressurizing the Recovery Officer to proceed against them and take coercive steps for recovery of the amount mentioned in the certificate issued in O.A.No.70 of 2007 in R.P.No.184 of 2008. Though the fact of non-functioning of the appellate Tribunal was brought to its notice, the Tribunal at Visakhapatnam, is proceeding with the recovery certificate. It is their contention that if once the properties are sold for recovery of the amount mentioned in the certificate, the appeal pending on the file of the Appellate Tribunal would become infructuous and the object of filing the appeal would become a futile exercise and would cause irreparable loss and hardship to them. The learned counsel for respondents submits that for the Appellate Tribunal constituted at Chennai, Chairman has been appointed and the Tribunal is functioning since 04.01.2010 and that, even otherwise, the Appellate Tribunal at Bombay was kept in-charge of the Appellate Tribunal at Chennai to decide the urgent cases and, therefore, it is not desirable for this Court to entertain a writ of this nature. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to with draw the writ petition. Permission is accorded. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 27th January 2010 cvrk