IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.10604 of 2008 Between: Nirmala Anand Kerur ..... Petitioner AND The Federal Bank Ltd., Bangalore, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Sri C.G.Kuriakose and 2 others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K.Gopala Krishna Murthy The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “to issue an order of direction, more in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to declare the act of the respondent No.1 as illegal, Ultra- Vires and to declare the notice U/Sec. 13 (2) of SARFAESI ACT 2002, (herein after refer to as act) r/w 3 (1) of SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002, issued on 8th April, 2008 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious, without power, authority or jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice and also the Rules made there under and further suffers from non- application of mind apart from being violative of Articles 13, 14, 15, 19, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions and further to declare the notice issued on 8th April, 2008 as null and void. It is further prayed to direct the respondents to act on the compromise proposal filed by the petitioner and to settle the issue amicably and to relieve the petitioner from this burden of liability and to compensate the petitioner suitably for the loss and damages incurred” On 27-06-2011, WPMP.No.13871 of 2008 was listed for hearing, and when the case was called, no one represented the petitioner. Therefore, the Writ Petition was directed to be posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is posted under the said caption today and when the case is called, no one appeared for the petitioner. It is, therefore, reasonable to presume that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing her cause in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed in default. As a sequel, WPMP.No.13871 of 2008, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is dismissed as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 29th June, 2011 lur