IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7310 of 2008 Between: M/s.Samrat Spinners Ltd., 2nd floor, S.D.Road Secunderabad, rep.by its Managing Director Mr.K.S.Raju, S/o.K.K.Raju aged about 44 years, R/o.Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Bank, Saifabad Branch, Sarovar Complex Hyderabad- 500001, rep.by the Chief Manager & Authorized officer 2 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Vth floor, Palace Heights Buildings, Abids, Hyderabad-500001 .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Auction Sale Notice dated 21.1.2008 and subsequent sale notices including dated 23.2.2008 of the Bank as illegal, arbitrary,and contrary to Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 violation of the statutory rights and also the Constitutional rights under Article 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and violation of the principles of Natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.MALOJI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the entire amount due and payable by the petitioner has been paid to the 1st respondent-Bank. The said fact has been admitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent-Bank. Thus it has been clearly stated by the parties that the entire amount payable to the 1st respondent-Bank has been paid and, therefore, the 1st respondent-Bank has closed the account of the petitioner. In the aforestated circumstances, in our opinion, the petition has become infructuous and, therefore, the sale notice dated 21-1-2008 followed by another notice dated 23-2-2008 issued by the 1st respondent would not survive. The said notices are accordingly quashed and set aside. The petition stands disposed of as infructuous with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 12th November, 2008. GRR