The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P7 as early as possible at any rate within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court;
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to release the vehicles bearing Registration Nos.KL.02-AJ.5242, KL.02.AJ.5036, KL.02.AJ.4334, KL.02.AK 1607, KL.02 AJ.5105 and KL.02.AK.1596 forthwith. ; and
iii) grant such other and further reliefs , as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the given facts and circumstances.”
2. The learned Counsel for the respondent/Dhanalakshmi Bank submits that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.29701 of 2013, which was disposed of vide W.P.(C)No.30243 OF 2014 2 Ext.P5 judgment permitting the petitioner to liquidate the liability in a phased manner. No payment has been effected so far. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the sale which was scheduled to be held on 10.10.2014, as referred to in Ext.P6 and P7 did not take place and that fresh steps are being taken by the Bank to realise the due amount after issuing a fresh notification.
In the above circumstance, nothing further survives in this writ petition to be considered and the same is dismissed accordingly. It is made clear that if the petitioner wants to settle the liability, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Bank and to have the matter finalised, subject to the terms to be formulated.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk