Writ petition not maintainable after prior challenge attained finality; same auction-related pleas could not be reagitated.

A writ petition challenging an auction notice and related proceedings was held not maintainable because the same objections had already been raised in an earlier writ petition that was withdrawn after the bank's statement on lease conditions. The earlier order attained finality when the special leave petition was dismissed for delay, so the petitioner could not reagitate the same pleas in subsequent proceedings. The Court noted that any separate challenge to the later Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal order could be pursued in accordance with law, but expressed no opinion on that issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the same challenge had already been raised earlier and the earlier order had attained finality.

Analysis: The petitioner had earlier questioned the auction notice and related proceedings in a previous writ petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn after recording the bank's statement regarding the lease conditions. The subsequent special leave petition was dismissed for delay, making the earlier order final. The Court held that the petitioner could not be permitted to reagitate the same pleas in the present proceedings. It also observed that any challenge to the later order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal could be pursued separately in accordance with law, but no opinion was expressed on that aspect.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the same issues and was dismissed against the petitioner.

---