N.22Sl 151/CL 20.08.26 DL-13 Ct-07 (S.R.) WPA 13265 of 2026 Murad S. Mahmood v. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Dhiman Kumar Sengupta Ms. Farhin Mustaque … for the Petitioner. Ms. Indrani Chakraborty, Ld. AGP Mr. Falguni Bandyopadhyay Ms. Sarda Sha … for the State. Mr. Anirban Pramanick Mr. P. Nath Mr. B. Dey … for the SBI. 1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the action of the Bank under the relevant provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the State files a report. The same is taken on record. 3. Mr. Pramanick, learned advocate appearing for the Bank submits that the writ petition has become infructuous inasmuch as the earlier order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court was carried in appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench and the appeal has been dismissed holding that the writ petition is not maintainable. A copy of the order dated July 03, 2026 has been handed up to Court. The same is taken on record. 4. The said order dated July 03, 2026 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench reveals that the interim order passed on this writ petition directing the State authorities to ensure implementation of the order dated August 2, 2021 prior to the returnable date i.e. July 13, 2026 remained undisturbed. MAT 1063 of 2026 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 5. The report filed by Mr. Bandhopadhyay indicates that the police authorities have implemented the order dated August 2, 2021 and handed up possession of the secured assets to the Bank. Such fact is confirmed by Mr. Pramanik, learned advocate appearing for the Bank. 6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner is unable to indicate any reason warranting exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the facts of the present case. The case neither demonstrates involvement of any public law element nor falls within any of the well settled exceptions justifying exercise of writ jurisdiction despite availability of alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the 2002 Act. 7. In fact with the implementation of the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the 2002 Act, the writ petition has lost life. 8. In such view of the matter no order can be passed 2 on this writ petition. The same stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible. (Om Narayan Rai, J.) 3