IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 6029 of 2005 Between: Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd., 5-9-89/1&2 Chapel Road, PB No.370, Hyderabad rep. by its Dy. Geneal Manager. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Recovery Officer ( Asst Provident Fund Commissioner), Employees Provident Fund Organization, SUB ACCOUNTS OFFICE, 12-1, SUSHEERAM COMPLEX, PATANCHERU, MEDAK DISTRICT. 2 Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office at Bavisya Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. 3 Central Provident fund Commissioner, Bavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 14, Bhikaji Cama, New Delhi. 4 SOM Phytopharama India Ltd., Plot No.154/A5, Sy.No.172/U SVCIE, IDA Bolaram, Medak District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in proceedings No.AP/SAO/PTC/32402/ENF(Recy)/2005 dt. 10..2005 proposing to sell the assets of the 4th respodnent without considering the petitioners objections and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional andfurther direct the respondents not to affect any sale of the 4th respondent properties and pass such other order or further other or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.N.REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner questions the order dated 10.02.2005 passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings No. AP/SAO/PTC/32402/ENF(Reccy)/2005 in proposing to sell the assets of the 4th respondent without considering the objections of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that pursuant to the said notice, no sale has been conducted and therefore, the subject matter of the writ petition in proceeding to sell the properties of the 4th respondent has become infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous making it clear that the respondents 1 to 3 shall not proceed with the sale of assets of 4th respondent pursuant to the impugned notice. In case the respondents 1 to 3 want to proceed against the properties of the 4th respondent, fresh action alone has to be initiated in which event the petitioner is at liberty to question the same. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:14.03.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK}