APHC011036812017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 45021/2017 Between: 1. M.H. ENAYATHULLAH PLAZA, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP. BY ITS PARTNER M.H. ENAYATHULLAH, OFFICE AT D.NO. 18-2-58A, PARIGI ROAD, HINDUPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, A.PANANTHAPUR 2. M.H. ENAYATHULLAH, S/O LATE K.MOHAMMED HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC , BUSINESS, R/O 1-2-51/A, BYPASS ROAD, ADJ. TO RELIANCE PETROL BANK, HINDUPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, A.P. 3. S.HASEENA BANU, W/O M.H.ENAYATHULLAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O 1-2-51/A, BYPASS ROAD, ADJ. TO RELIANCE PETROL BANK, HINDUPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARK) 2nd floor, Bus Stand Complex Kati, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chief Manager ...RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent 2 JS,J W.P.No.45021/2017 bank In wrongly calculating the amount of benefit available to the petitioners in the quantum of amount on One Time Settlement as per cl. (vii) of the OTS dt. 18-9-2017 as being illegal, arbitrary, unilateral, unjust and contrary to the terms of OTS dt. 18-9-2017 and consequently direct the respondent bank to adhere to the clauses of the OTS particularly CI. (vii) of the OTS dt. 18-9- 2017, and to grant such IA NO: 1 OF 2017 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 direct the respondent bank to receive the amount of Rs. 47,65,110/- by 31-12- 2017 and discharge the Petitioners from all liabilities, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. B S PRASAD 3 JS,J W.P.No.45021/2017 The Court made the following ORDER: Though the matter was adjourned on 15.10.2025, there was no representation for the petitioners, therefore, the case is directed to be listed on 05.11.2025. Even on that day there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Hence, the matter is directed to be listed today under the caption “for dismissal”. Today when the matter is called there is no representation for the petitioners. It appears that the learned counsel for the petitioners is not interested to prosecute the case. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed as non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dated: 12.11.2025 KAS 4 JS,J W.P.No.45021/2017 241 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 45021/2017 Dated: 12.11.2025 KAS