IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 27th DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 W.P.No.95 of 2010 Between: Sri Peela Gangadhar ….PETITIONER(S) and The Vysya Bank Limited, Aripaka Branch, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Senior officer and others …RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.95 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.812 of 2002 pending on its file. The case of the petitioner is that when the Tribunal passed an order dated 28.01.2009 in I.A.Nos.895, 896 and 897 of 2009 in O.A.No.812 of 2002, aggrieved thereby, he preferred appeals in M.A.Nos.70 and 72 of 2009 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai, along with a stay petition. It is alleged that since there is no Presiding Officer in the Appellate Tribunal, he could not obtain any orders or any interim orders in the appeals and they are pending. Though the said fact was brought to its notice, the Tribunal at Visakhapatnam, posted the O.A. for hearing on 10.01.2010 and pressurizing the petitioner and other defendants to submit their arguments in the main petition with a view to dispose of the same. It is his contention that if the Tribunal proceeds with hearing of the O.A.No.812 of 2002, the appeals pending on the file of the Appellate Tribunal would become infructuous and the object of filing the appeals 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 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 Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.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