1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1626 OF 2007 Smt.Uma M. Kriplani & Others .. Petitioners. Versus Union of India & Others .. Respondents. Ms.Anita Cracstilino with Mr.H.S. Jain i/by Thakordas & Madgavkar for the petitioners. Mr.R.A. Lokhande for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.K.B. Adhanthaya for respondent No.5. Mr.A. Ramakrishna for respondent No.6. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 26th February, 2008 DATED : 26th February, 2008 DATED : 26th February, 2008 P.C. : 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Challenge in the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the recovery certificate dated 24-7-2003 passed in Original Application No.246 of 2001 and consequential recovery proceedings taken thereafter in relation to the same and transfer of the property in question. Besides claiming these reliefs, the petitioner has also claimed that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure for appointment as Presiding Officer of Tribunal) Rules, 1998 are ultra vires and contrary to the policy of the Constitution of India. The Presiding Officers appointed in furtherance to the said Rules are not entitled to hold said post as 2 a Writ of Certiorari has also been prayed in this writ petition questioning the appointment of said authorities. 2. It is not necessary for us to notice in detail the facts giving rise to the present writ petition. Suffice it to note that an order was passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the petitioner, which ultimately culminated into passing of a decree and consequently issueance of recovery certificate on 24-7-2003. The property situated at Bandra, in relation to which, steps were taken by the financial institutions to recover its dues was sold by public auction and the sale was confirmed. The orders in relation to issuance of recovery certificate and challenge at a different stage to the sale of the property was raised by the petitioner in an Appeal filed before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed by order dated 2-3-2007. Against this Appeal, Special Leave Petition was filed by the present petitioner, which was permitted to be withdrawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 5-4-2007. The said order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as under : "We are informed that as of 3rd April, 2007, the sale in favour of respondent No.2 herein stands confirmed and, hence, this petition has become infructuous. In the 3 circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition. Permission granted. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn." 3. It is not in dispute before us that prior to the passing of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the property was sold and sale stood confirmed in favour of respondent No.2 in those proceedings. Once the Special Leave Petition was withdrawn by the petitioner unconditionally as having become infructuous, obviously the petitioner in the present petition cannot be permitted to raise grounds, which should or ought to have been raised in the Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In face of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it would hardly be possible for this Court in any way to interfere with the proceedings taken. The question raised in the present writ petition has now become academic in nature. 4. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the present writ petition and hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE 4 J.P. DEVADHAR, J.