Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Bank had submitted that an e-auction was scheduled to be held, on 03.10.2013. However, there were no bidders in the said e-auction. Therefore, no e-auction had taken place. In such circumstances, the writ petition has become infructuous. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had not refuted the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. 3. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent Bank that no e-auction had taken place, on 03.10.2013, as scheduled, the writ petition has become infructuous. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.