IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 9501 of 2006 Between: Sita International Exporters and Importers, represented by its Proprietrix Smt.Sitakumari, w/o G.B.K.Sharma, r/o 4-21, Venkateswara Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Prudential Co.operative Urban Bank Limited, represented by its Managing Director, R.P.Road Branch, Secunderabad. 2.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies/Recovery Officer, The Prudential Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, R.P.Road Branch, Secunderabad. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not entertaining the stay application as illegal, arbitrary and in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.S.ASHOK ANAND KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.9501 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the second respondent-Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies in not entertaining the application for stay of auction filed by the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. This Court while directing Rule nisi, passed an interim order on 02.05.2006 which was subsequently modified on 22.06.2006 as under. “There shall be interim stay of auction subject to payment of Rs.30,00,000/- within a period of 8 weeks from 02.05.2006, failing which, the interim stay granted on 02.05.2006 shall stand vacated without further reference to the Court and no extension of time will be granted.” Having regard to the admitted fact that the proceedings are pending before the second respondent and the grievance of the petitioner was only with regard to non-consideration of his application for stay, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the case and express any opinion. In view of interim order already passed as extracted above, no further orders are necessary and accordingly, leaving it open to the second respondent to take necessary steps in accordance with law, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ 11.06.2008 VGB