The challenge in the above writ petition is a notification issued at Ext.P3, which according to the petitioner was illegal, since it does not contain the date, time and place of proposed auction. The writ petition itself was filed in the year 2010. If the sale had been proceeded with, then the petitioner ought to have challenged the same and if not, the Bank shall be entitled to proceed with the recovery proceedings. In such circumstance, there would be absolutely no point in keeping the writ petition pending. Writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge