CHANDRAKANTHARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner in the year 1982. Thereafter, he died. Now his legal representative has made an application as per i. A. I to bring herself on record. I. A. I is allowed and the wife of the original petitioner is brought on record. ( 2 ) SHE was directed to pay Rs. 10,294/- and she has paid that amount and filed the receipt for remitting the said amount to the Treasury. ( 3 ) IT is alleged that the petitioner (since deceased) borrowed certain sums from the respondent-Bank to dig a bore-well. He did not repay the same. Therefore, in order to recover the same, a dispute was raised by the Bank and an award was obtained behind the back of the petitioner for payment of Rs, 10,294/ -. In execution of the award they brought his property to sale behind his back without notice to him and also sold the same to the third respondent, who purchased the land on behalf of the Government. In the process of documentation, the petitioner came to know of the same and presented this writ petition challenging the legality of the entire proceedings resulting in the sale interalia on the ground that the benefit of a Government notification had not been given to him as the bore-well was a failure and in such cases the debt was required to be wiped out. ( 4 ) DESPITE notice served on all the three respondents, none have entered appearance. I have already, noticed treasury challan for payment of Rs. 10,294/- is produced in the Court. There is no contest by the respondents. They arc therefore placed exparte. ( 5 ) AS the allegations have gone unchallenged and as the loan amount has been deposited in the treasury, the impugned orders arc quashed as prayed for. This petition stands allowed with costs. ( 6 ) I once again I must observe that despite service of notice, the Government officials extend no co-operation for dispensation of justice. If the petitioner (now his legal reeprescntalivc) is entitled to refund of the amount in view of the government order and if she is entitled to the benefit of that order regarding the failed bore-well, the benefit shall be extended to her and mandamus to that effect shall also issue exparte. Writ Petition is allowed as above. If the petitioner (now his legal reeprescntalivc) is entitled to refund of the amount in view of the government order and if she is entitled to the benefit of that order regarding the failed bore-well, the benefit shall be extended to her and mandamus to that effect shall also issue exparte. Writ Petition is allowed as above. Advocate's fee Rs. 500/ -. Writ Petition allowed. --- *** --- .