ORDER : Kunuru Lakshman, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the auction dated 27.12.2019 in respect of the petitioners' properties by respondent No. 1 bank in collusion with respondent No. 3 under sale notice dated 21.11.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and for consequential direction to respondent No. 1 to consider One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal submitted by the petitioners and not to take any coercive steps against the properties including removing the plant and machinery from the leased premises. 2. Heard Mr. Amancharla V. Gopala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S. Sainathan, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 - Bank, and Mr. Satish Kumar Varma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are the guarantors to the loan obtained by respondent No. 3. The petitioners being absolute owners of the properties have offered the same as collateral security to respondent No. 1 bank for the loan obtained by respondent No. 3. Since respondent No. 3 failed to repay the loan amount, respondent No. 1 bank has initiated the measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act, 2002). 4. Respondent No. 3 has surrendered the lease prematurely to respondent No. 2 in the month of November, 2019 without consent and permission of the petitioners. Thus, the same would amounts to violation of terms of Contract and Novation of Contract. The said fact was informed to the Chief Manager of respondent No. 1 bank by petitioner No. 1 vide their letter dated 06.03.2018. Even, the petitioners came forward to pay an amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- (Rupees ninety lakhs only) to settle the loan account. But, the Chief Manager of respondent No. 1 bank refused to accept the said offer. Respondent No. 1 has issued a final notice dated 12.02.2018 calling upon respondent No. 3 to pay an amount of Rs. 18,16,907/-. 5. It is further contention of the petitioners that the Chief Manager of respondent No. 1 bank has colluded with respondent No. 3, principal borrower, and took consent letter dated 20.04.2018, wherein respondent No. 3 has authorized the bank to sell away the plant and machinery for Rs. 50.00 lakhs as well as schedule properties to close the loan account. Thus, respondent No. 1 in collusion with respondent Nos. 50.00 lakhs as well as schedule properties to close the loan account. Thus, respondent No. 1 in collusion with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is trying to knock away the properties belong to the petitioners at a throw away price. 6. On the request of respondent No. 1 bank, the petitioners, vide their letter dated 27.08.2018, enhanced the amount to Rs. 110.00 lakhs from Rs. 90.00 lakhs to close the loan account. But, during pendency of the said proposal, respondent No. 1 tried to dispossess the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners filed an application under Section - 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Hyderabad, seeking various reliefs viz., to declare that the action of respondent bank in dispossessing the petitioners herein from the schedule property as illegal; to declare the notice dated 10.10.2018 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as illegal; and to restore the possession of the petitioners herein on the secured asset etc. The DRT granted interim order on the condition of the petitioners herein depositing 25% of the demanded amount. Feeling aggrieved by the said interim order, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 42257 of 2018. Thereafter, since S.A. No. 228 of 2018 was dismissed for non-prosecution, this Court dismissed the W.P. No. 42257 of 2018. Subsequently, the petitioners have filed I.A. to restore S.A. No. 228 of 2018 along with delay petition and the same are pending for consideration. 7. During pendency of the said interlocutory applications, respondent No. 1 bank has issued an auction notice dated 21.11.2019 to conduct auction on 27.12.2019 and accordingly, respondent No. 1 bank has conducted the auction on 27.12.2019, which is in utter violation of the procedure laid under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short 'Rules, 2002'). According to the petitioners, respondent No. 1 bank has not complied with the procedure laid down under Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules, 2002. The respondent No. 1 bank failed to follow the due procedure contemplated under Rule 9(1), (2) and (3) of the Rules, 2002 and even respondent No. 2 being successful bidder, could not pay the entire amount as contemplated under law. Therefore, the petitioners have submitted a representation dated 21.04.2020 to respondent No. 1 bank with a request not to proceed against the properties belong to them. Therefore, the petitioners have submitted a representation dated 21.04.2020 to respondent No. 1 bank with a request not to proceed against the properties belong to them. Respondent No. 1 bank issued a reply dated 04.05.2020 vaguely and did not consider any of contentions raised by the petitioners in their representation dated 21.04.2020. 8. With the above said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that respondent No. 1 bank acted arbitrarily in collusion with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with a mala fide intention to knock away the properties belong to the petitioners at throw away price. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition to declare the auction dated 27.12.2019 conducted by respondent No. 1 bank as illegal. 9. This Court vide order dated 08.06.2020 in I.A. No. 1 of 2020, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in furtherance to the auction dated 27.12.2019 on the ground that the response dated 04.05.2020 of respondent No. 1 to the representation dated 21.04.2020 of the petitioners appear to be arbitrary and unsustainable. 10. Respondent No. 1 bank filed its counter and vacate stay petition vide I.A. No. 2 of 2020. It is contended by Mr. S. Sainathan, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 bank that respondent No. 1 bank has sanctioned certain credit facilities to M/s. Siri Industries, to which respondent No. 3 is proprietor, on 09.03.2010 for establishment of Modern Parboiled Rice Mill. Respondent No. 1 bank has also extended certain other credit facilities to M/s. Siri Industries. The said credit facilities were revised and renewed from time to time. The petitioners herein stood as guarantors for the said credit facilities by mortgaging their properties as collateral security. 11. Since M/s. Siri Industries failed to repay the loan amount, the bank has initiated the proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Rules, 2002. Pursuant to the same, auction notice dated 21.11.2019 was also issued for sale of the plant and machinery in respect of M/s. Siri Industries and other properties. The reserve price for the plant and machinery was shown as Rs. 28,71,000/-. Accordingly, auction was conducted on 27.12.2019. In the said auction, Mr. Pambidi Thirupathi Rao, partner of respondent No. 2, stood as successful bidder for the plant and machinery of M/s. Siri Industries by quoting an amount of Rs. 45,01,000/- as against the reserve price of Rs. 28,71,000/-. The reserve price for the plant and machinery was shown as Rs. 28,71,000/-. Accordingly, auction was conducted on 27.12.2019. In the said auction, Mr. Pambidi Thirupathi Rao, partner of respondent No. 2, stood as successful bidder for the plant and machinery of M/s. Siri Industries by quoting an amount of Rs. 45,01,000/- as against the reserve price of Rs. 28,71,000/-. Respondent No. 2 has paid the entire amount and respondent No. 1 on receipt of the same, issued Certificate of Sale (for movable property) on 08.06.2020 in favour of Mr. Pambidi Thirupathi Rao. 12. The petitioners have offered only Rs. 90.00 lakhs to settle the loan account of respondent No. 3. But, the same was not accepted by the bank and, on the other hand, respondent No. 1 bank has advised them to enhance the amount. But, the petitioners have not enhanced. Petitioner No. 1 filed a suit in O.S. No. 578 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Warangal against Mrs. Miryalkar Nirmala and others for perpetual injunction in respect of the land to an extent of 666.66 square yards in Survey No. 75, situated at Shyampet (J) Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District. Respondent No. 2 herein has also filed a suit in O.S. No. 32 of 2018 on the file of the VII Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal against respondent No. 3 for perpetual injunction and the same was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 25.06.2018. The petitioners neither complied with the interim orders passed by the DRT by depositing 25% of the demanded amount, nor paid any amount. Even they have not enhanced the offer as advised by respondent No. 1 bank. Thus, the petitioners cannot claim for acceptance of OTS as a matter of right. There is no provision under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 or the Rules, 2002 or any guidelines to accept the OTS offered by the petitioners. It is the prerogative of respondent No. 1 bank to accept OTS offer. Respondent No. 1 bank has conducted auction and issued certificate of sale on 08.06.2020 in favour of respondent No. 2 strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, 2002. The petitioners have been initiating legal proceedings one after other with an intention to stall the sale proceedings so as to not recover the secured debt. 13. The petitioners have been initiating legal proceedings one after other with an intention to stall the sale proceedings so as to not recover the secured debt. 13. Respondent No. 2 has filed counter along with vacate stay petition vide I.A. No. 3 of 2020. It is contended by Mr. Satish Kumar Varma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that on the request of respondent No. 3, partner of respondent No. 2 has leased out the premises for a period of ten (10) years commencing from 14.11.2009 to 12.11.2019. The premises comprises of Plot Nos. 173 and 176 of Survey Nos. 152 and 337 of IDA Rampur Village, Dharmasagar Mandal, Warangal District, admeasuring 5373.04 square yards or 4500 square metres. Respondent No. 3 was very irregular in payment of lease amount. Respondent No. 2 also came to know about non-payment of loan by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 1 bank. Therefore, respondent No. 2 requested respondent No. 3 to surrender the lease and accordingly, respondent No. 3 has surrendered the same by executing a registered deed of surrender dated 10.07.2017. Respondent No. 2 has also requested respondent No. 3 to remove the plant and machinery from the said premises, but he failed to do so. Respondent No. 2 has also requested respondent No. 1 bank to remove the plant and machinery from the said premises. Even the bank failed to do so. It was compelled to file a suit in O.S. No. 32 of 2018. The same was decreed restraining respondent No. 3 from interfering with the possession of respondent No. 2 with the schedule property therein. 14. Respondent No. 2 came to know about the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by respondent No. 1 bank to recover the loan amount. The partner of respondent No. 2 has participated in the auction held on 27.12.2019 pursuant to the sale notice dated 21.11.2019 in respect of plant and machinery of M/s. Siri Industries, wherein he stood as a successful bidder by offering an amount of Rs. 45,01,000/- as against the reserve price of Rs. 28,71,000/-. Respondent No. 1 bank has intimated the partner of respondent No. 2 that he was successful bidder vide letter dated 30.12.2019. Pursuant to the same, he has paid the entire bid amount of Rs. 45,01,000/-. 45,01,000/- as against the reserve price of Rs. 28,71,000/-. Respondent No. 1 bank has intimated the partner of respondent No. 2 that he was successful bidder vide letter dated 30.12.2019. Pursuant to the same, he has paid the entire bid amount of Rs. 45,01,000/-. On receipt of the same, respondent No. 1 bank has issued Certificate of Sale (for Movable Property) on 08.06.2020 in favour of Mr. Pambidi Thirupathi Rao, partner of respondent No. 2. Thus, there is no illegality or irregularity on the part of respondent No. 1 bank in conducting the auction as well as in issuing certificate of sale in favour of Mr. Pambidi Thirupathi Rao. 15. Respondent No. 2 has also filed additional counter affidavit contending that Mr. Pambidi Thirupathi Rao has participated in the auction in respect of the plant and machinery of M/s. Siri Industries which is a movable asset and the same cannot be treated as immovable property. Therefore, Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules, 2002, have no application and only Rule 6 and 7 of the Rules are applicable. The machinery was fixed in M/s. Siri Industries with nuts and bolts and the same can be removed, which is evident from the Certificate of Sale (for Movable Property) dated 08.06.2020 issued by respondent No. 1 bank. 16. With the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 sought to dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioners. 17. The petitioners have also filed rejoinder to the counter contending that respondent No. 1 bank has not followed the procedure laid down under Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules, 2002. The plant and machinery sold in the auction conducted on 27.12.2019 pursuant to the sale notice dated 21.11.2019 are immovable properties and, therefore, respondent No. 1 bank has to follow the procedure laid down under Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules, 2002. Reliance was placed by them on the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, General Clauses Act, 1847, and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Solid and Correct Engineering Works (2010) 5 SCC 122 . By referring to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the auction conducted on 27.12.2019 was in utter violation of the procedure laid down under Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules, 2002. 18. By referring to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the auction conducted on 27.12.2019 was in utter violation of the procedure laid down under Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules, 2002. 18. On perusal of the entire material on record, the undisputed facts in the present case are as under: (i) M/s. Siri Industries, is a proprietary concern, and respondent No. 3 is its proprietor; (ii) M/s. Siri Industries has approached respondent No. 1 bank for credit facility to establish a Modern Parboiled Rice Mill. The same was sanctioned on 09.03.2010 by respondent No. 1 bank; (iii) The aforesaid credit facilities were revised and renewed from time to time; (iv) The petitioners herein stood as guarantors and signed the guarantee agreement for the said credit facilities availed by M/s. Siri Industries by mortgaging their properties as collateral security; (v) M/s. Siri Industries committed default in making repayment to respondent No. 1 bank and, therefore, the bank has initiated the measures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Rules, 2002; (vi) The petitioners have approached respondent No. 1 bank by offering an amount of Rs. 90.00 lakhs to settle the loan account of M/s. Siri Industries under OTS. On request of respondent No. 1 bank, the said amount was enhanced to Rs. 110 lakhs; (vii) The petitioners have also filed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 vide S.A. No. 228 of 2018 to declare that respondent No. 1 bank is not entitled to dispossess the petitioners from the schedule property and for other reliefs; (viii) The DRT has granted interim stay on condition of the petitioners depositing 25% of the demand amount. The petitioners instead of complying with the said order have filed W.P. No. 42257 of 2018. The petitioners instead of complying with the said order have filed W.P. No. 42257 of 2018. Thereafter, this Court dismissed the said writ petition vide order dated 19.07.2019 on the ground that the said S.A. was dismissed for non-prosecution; (ix) According to the petitioners, they have filed restoration application along with condonation delay petition and the same are pending for adjudication before the DRT; (x) Respondent No. 1 bank has issued possession notice dated 10.10.2018 itself; (xi) Respondent No. 3 has surrendered the lease of the said plant and machinery of M/s. Siri Industries by executing a registered deed of surrender of lease dated 10.07.2017 to respondent No. 2; (xii) Respondent No. 1 has conducted auction of open plots and issued certificate of sale (for Immovable Property) dated 07.06.2019 in favour of Mr. Ganesh Chandpatla and there is no challenge to it; and (xiii) Similarly, respondent No. 1 bank has issued sale notice dated 21.11.2019 proposing to conduct sale of movable property viz., plant and machinery of M/s. Siri Industries and also other properties. Accordingly, auction was conducted on 27.12.2019. In the said auction, Mr. Pambidi Thirupathi Rao, partner of respondent No. 2 became successful bidder for an amount of Rs. 45,01,000/- as against the reserve price of Rs. 28,71,000/-, and he has paid the entire amount to respondent No. 1 bank. On receipt of the same, respondent No. 1 bank has issued Certificate of Sale (for movable property) dated 08.06.2020 in his favour. 19. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Amancharla V. Gopala Rao, would contend that respondent No. 1 has conducted the auction in question in utter violation of Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules, 2002. But, he has failed to establish the violation of the procedure laid down under the Rules, 2002 by respondent No. 1 bank. It is contended by him that the plant and machinery of M/s. Siri Industries is attached to the earth and, therefore, it amounts to immovable property, as defined under Section - 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He has also placed reliance on Section 2(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1847, as per which, immovable property shall include land, benefits arising out of the land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. He has also placed reliance on Section 2(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1847, as per which, immovable property shall include land, benefits arising out of the land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. He placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Solid and Correct Engineering Works. Since the plant and machinery are immovable, respondent No. 1 bank has to strictly follow the procedure laid down under Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules, 2002, which respondent No. 1 bank did not do so. Thus, according to him, respondent No. 1 bank has conducted the auction in utter violation of the procedure laid down under the Rules, 2002. 20. It is relevant to note that in the sale notice dated 21.11.2019 issued by respondent No. 1 bank, the details of properties are mentioned as "all that Plant and Machinery of M/s. Siri Industries, in Sy. No. 173 & 176, situated at Industrial Estates, IDA - Rampur Village, Madikonda, Kazipet Mandal, Warangal Urban TS in the name of M/s. Siri Industries". In the very same sale notice, another property is also mentioned viz., "Housing Property bearing H. No. 2-6-72 on land admeasuring 200.00 sq. Yards being G+1 floor building totally admeasuring 1850.00 Sq.ft and other civil works there on situated at Circuit House Road, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal Urban - TS in the name of Sri Thopucherla Kishan Rao S/o Muthyam Rao". It is not in dispute that respondent No. 3, proprietor of M/s. Siri Industries, has obtained lease of "two sheds along with vacant land bearing Plot Nos. 173 and 176 out of Survey Nos. 152 and 337 of Rampur, admeasuring 5373.04 sq.yds or 4500.00 sq.mts., (tin shed plinth area 1374.88 sq.yds or 12373.92 sq.ft.) in IDA, Rampur, Dharmasagar Mandal, Warangal District" from respondent No. 2 by way of a registered deed of lease dated 14.11.2009. Thereafter, he has obtained credit facilities from respondent No. 1 bank for establishment of a Modern Parboiled Rice Mill and, accordingly, he established the same in the said leased premises. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 has executed a registered deed of surrender of lease dated 10.03.2017 surrendering the said leased premises in favour of respondent No. 2. M/s. Siri Industries has availed the credit facilities to which the petitioners stood as guarantors by mortgaging their properties as collateral security. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 has executed a registered deed of surrender of lease dated 10.03.2017 surrendering the said leased premises in favour of respondent No. 2. M/s. Siri Industries has availed the credit facilities to which the petitioners stood as guarantors by mortgaging their properties as collateral security. The land including sheds does not belong to respondent No. 3 and it belongs to respondent No. 2. The plant and machinery belongs to M/s. Siri Industries to which credit facility was obtained from respondent No. 1 bank to establish a Rice Mill. After obtaining the credit facility, M/s. Siri Industries has purchased the plant and machinery, fixed it in the leased premises with nuts and bolts. 21. Section 2(26) of the General Clauses Act defines 'immovable property', which includes land, benefits arising out of the land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with 'immovable property attached to earth', which means rooted in the earth, as in the case of trees and shrubs; imbedded in the earth as in the case of walls or buildings; and attached to what is imbedded for the permanent beneficial enjoyment of that to which it is attached. The definitions under the General Clauses Act and the Transfer of Property Act in respect of 'immovable property' includes land, anything which is rooted in the earth as in the case of trees and shrubs, imbedded in the earth as in the case of walls or buildings etc. In the present case, the machinery was fitted with nuts and bolts in the leased premises with an intention to make it permanently, is not established. Thus, it cannot be termed as 'immovable property' as it can be removed and, therefore, it will be termed as 'movable property'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Solid and Correct Engineering Works has categorically held as follows: "43. It is noteworthy that in none of the cases relied upon by the assessee referred to above was there any element of installation of the machine for a given period of time as is the position in the instant case. The machines in question were by their very nature intended to be fixed permanently to the structures which were embedded in the earth. The machines in question were by their very nature intended to be fixed permanently to the structures which were embedded in the earth. The structures were also custom made for the fixing of such machines without which the same could not become functional. The machines thus becoming a part and parcel of the structures in which they were fitted were no longer moveable goods. It was in those peculiar circumstances that the installation and erection of machines at site were held to be by this Court, to be immovable property that ceased to remain moveable or marketable as they were at the time of their purchase. Once such a machine is fixed, embedded or assimilated in a permanent structure, the movable character of the machine becomes extinct. The same cannot thereafter be treated as moveable so as to be dutiable under the Excise Act. But cases in which there is no assimilation of the machine with the structure permanently, would stand on a different footing. 44. In the instant case all that has been said by the assessee is that the machine is fixed by nuts and bolts to a foundation not because the intention was to permanently attach it to the earth but because a foundation was necessary to provide a wobble free operation to the machine. An attachment of this kind without the necessary intent of making the same permanent cannot, in our opinion, constitute permanent fixing, embedding or attachment in the sense that would make the machine a part and parcel of the earth permanently. In that view of the matter we see no difficulty in holding that the plants in question were not immovable property so as to be immune from the levy of excise duty. Our answer to question No. 1 is accordingly in the affirmative." 22. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, once a machine is fixed, embedded or assimilated in a permanent structure, the movable character of the machine becomes extinct. The same cannot thereafter be treated as movables. The machine fixed by nuts and bolts to a foundation not because the intention was to permanently attach it to the earth, but because a foundation was necessary to provide a wobble free operation to the machine. The same cannot thereafter be treated as movables. The machine fixed by nuts and bolts to a foundation not because the intention was to permanently attach it to the earth, but because a foundation was necessary to provide a wobble free operation to the machine. An attachment of this kind without the necessary intent of making the same permanent cannot constitute permanent fixing, embedding or attachment in the sense that would make the machine part and parcel of the earth permanently. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as immovable property and it will be treated as movable properties. 23. Coming to the case on hand, as discussed supra, M/s. Siri Industries, after availing the loan, purchased the machinery and fixed it with nuts and bolts in the leased premises to a foundation. But intention to make it permanent was not established. More so, it is leased premises. The same can be detached by removing the nuts and bolts. Neither it is fixed nor embedded, nor assimilated in a permanent structure. The petitioners did not produce any evidence to the effect that it is a permanent structure so as to term it as immovable property. In the absence of the same, the plant and machinery put to auction pursuant to the sale notice dated 21.11.2019 cannot be termed as 'immovable property' and it can safely be termed as 'movable property'. Therefore, the procedure laid down under Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules, 2002 is not applicable to the case on hand for conducting sale of plant and machinery of M/s. Siri Industries. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that respondent No. 1 bank has conducted auction on 27.12.2019 in respect of plant and machinery of the said M/s. Siri Industries is in utter violation of Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules, 2002 is unsustainable. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that Mr. Pambidi Thirupathi Rao has not paid the entire bid amount within the time stipulated in Rule 9 of the Rules, 2002 is also unsustainable. 24. As discussed supra, Mr. Pambidi Thirupathi Rao stood as successful bidder for Rs. 45,01,000/- as against the reserve price of Rs. 28,71,000/- in respect of the plant and machinery of M/s. Siri Industries. On receipt of the entire bid amount of Rs. 45,01,000/- only, respondent No. 1 bank has issued Certificate of Sale (for movable property) on 08.06.2020 in his favour. Pambidi Thirupathi Rao stood as successful bidder for Rs. 45,01,000/- as against the reserve price of Rs. 28,71,000/- in respect of the plant and machinery of M/s. Siri Industries. On receipt of the entire bid amount of Rs. 45,01,000/- only, respondent No. 1 bank has issued Certificate of Sale (for movable property) on 08.06.2020 in his favour. The said Certificate of Sale also discloses the description of the items mentioned therein as 'movables'. 25. Viewed from any angle, the petitioners failed to establish that respondent No. 1 bank has conducted the auction in violation of the procedure laid down under Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules, 2002. Therefore, the present writ petition fails and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed. 26. In the result, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. The interim order granted by this Court earlier stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.