IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 8108 of 2004(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------- THE THRISSUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.87, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HIGH ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, M.R.JAYENDRAN, S/O. M.K.RAMAN. BY ADVS. SRI.C.D.DILEEP,SC,TRICHUR URBN CO-OPBAN SRI.R.RAJESH NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., CO-OPERATION (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, THE THRISSUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR-3. 3. JAISON, S/O.KOLLIYATHPARAMBIL YACOB @ JACOB, KANAKAMALA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. MARTHA, W/O. KOLLIYATHPARAMBIL YACOB @ JACOB, KANAKAMALA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. JINCY, W/O. KOLLIYATHPARAMBIL JAISON, KANAKAMALA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3-4 BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 8108 of 2004 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, the Thrissur Urban Co-operative Bank Limited No.87, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the Government on 23.2.2004 setting aside the sale held by the Special Sale Officer on 22.10.2002. The sale was confirmed on 14.2.2003, but by virtue of Ext.P6 order, it stands set aside. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner bank submitted that respondents 3 to 5 have settled the loan accounts, that no amount is due from them to the petitioner bank and that, the issue raised in the writ petition has become academic. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous with the observation that the benefits flowing from Ext.P6 order in favour of respondents 3 to 5 shall continue to operate. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.