IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 22741 of 2005 BETWEEN: Kamepalli Madhavi, W/o. Rama Rao, R/o. D.No. 9-336, C.R. Colony, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Manager, Bank of India, Kothapet, Guntur. 2 The Authorised Officer, Bank of India, Kothapet, Guntur. 3 M/s. Kampelly Agro Traders, Chilakaluripet, Rep by its Prop. K. Satyavathi D/o. Rangaiah, Hindu, aged 45 years, Pandaripuram, C.R. Colony, Chilakaluripet, Guntur 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing auction notice dated 21-9-2005 published in Eenadu dated 22-9-2005 putting the property of the petitioner bearing No. 9-336, in D.No.10, Block No. 9 of Purushotha Patnam Village under Chilakaluripet Municipal Area, Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, in gross violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and consequently praying this Hon'ble Court to set-aside the impugned notice and direct the respondents to release the properties of the petitioner forthwith and pass such other order order or orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.V.BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. S. SURYA PRAKASA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petitioner, who is questioning the auction notice of auctioning his properties for non payment of debt to the third respondent, informed him that the matter has been settled and therefore, he does not want to prosecute this writ petition. Recording the above submission, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not pressed and the interim order passed on 21.10.2005 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J January 19, 2009 DSK/CBS