APHC010710302013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4223/2013 Between: 1. M/S. MUTYALA TEXTILES, SRI MUTYALA VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O RAMARAO, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO.3-3-70, NARASINGARAO PETA, ANAKAPALLE. 2. MUTYALA SURYAKUMARI, W/O VENKATESWARA RAO,, RESIDENT OF D.NO.3-3-70, NARASINGARAO PETA, ANAKAPALLE. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE SBI REP BY BR MANAGER, BHPV SALES HUB, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER SARFASI ACT C/O, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BHPV SALES HUB, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, 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 classifying the accounts of the 1st petitioner with the respondent bank bearing Account No.31644056621 as a non-performing asset and in resorting to the provisions of the SARFAST Act by taking the purported symbolic possession and in threatening to take physical possession of the properties claimed to have been mortgaged to the bank under the said account as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the provisions of the Provisions of the SARFASI Act against the 2 constitutional guarantees and to consequently direct the respondents to f\drop all further, proceedings against our properties under SARFASI Act IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 5269 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings of the respondents consequent to the notices of the respondents dated 24-09-2012 under Section 13 (2) of the SARFASI Act and the possession notice dated 08-01-2013 under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules pertaining to the loan account of the petitioner firm during the pendency of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following ORDER: Sri Naumene, learned counsel representing Sri K.Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners appeared through virtual mode and would submit that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and hence, the writ petition has become infructuous. Recording the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Dated 10.07.2025 SPP 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4223 OF 2013 Dated 10.07.2025 SPP