IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24321 of 2010 Between: Mulla Ramathulla ..... Petitioner AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary to Cooperative Department, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju Counsel for respondents 1,2&5: Government Pleader for Cooperation Counsel for respondents 3&4: Sri K. Sitaram The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24321 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “… Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to auction the mortgaged property vide E.P.No.420/05-06 without extending the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme to clear the dues pending with the respondent bank, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.A.No.1227 of 2002 and batch dated 20.08.2009 and consequently direct the respondents to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to settle the dues pending with the bank by way of one time settlement by waiving the interest as was done in similarly situated defaulter.” At the hearing, Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that even before granting an interim order, the respondents have gone ahead with the auction proceedings, but, as no bidder has participated in the auction, the sale could not be held. He also submitted that respondent No.3 has set-off the value of the property towards the debt owed by the petitioner. Having regard to the above subsequent events, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication and the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law, if he felt aggrieved by the subsequent actions of respondent No.3. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.31124 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.12.2010 ES