ORDER: The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of declaration, declaring the sale of the petitioner’s property bearing door No.20-F3, K.R.N. Koil Street, Anupparpalayam Pudur, Tirupur-3, dated 30.6.1992 by the first respondent as null and void ab initio. 2. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents as well. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would contend that he was working as the Manager in the second respondent Co-operative Society since 1968; that he got suspended from service in the year 1986 on charge of misappropriation of funds and subsequently, he was dismissed from service in the year 1988; that for the same offence of misappropriation of funds of the second respondent Society, the petitioner would submit, that a criminal charge of misappropriation is under investigation and a case filed by him against termination of service is also pending before the Labour Court. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that the first respondent suo motu assuming the powers of an arbitrator, passed an ex parte award directing the petitioner to make good the alleged loss a sum of Rs.6,73,196.87 with interest thereon at 18 per cent per annum from 18.5.1990 in A.R.C. No.88/90-1991, dated 18.6.1990 under Sec.90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act") based on the claim petition filed by the second respondent; that pursuant to the said award, the petitioner’s property bearing door No.20-F3, K.R.N.Koil Street, Anuparpalayam Pudur, Tiruppur, has been attached; that aggrieved, he filed an appeal under Sec.152(1)(a) of the Act before the Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Madras, along with the said application and the Tribunal was pleased to grant conditional stay directing him to pay a sum of Rs.25,000 on or before 30.6.1992 and a like sum on or before 22.7.1992 failing compliance of which, the stay granted will stand automatically vacated. 5. 5. The further case of the petitioner is that he was not in a position to comply with the conditions as per the orders of the Tribunal dated 23.6.1992; that an application filed for modification of the condition also having come to be dismissed by the Tribunal on 23.7.1992, he filed W.P.No.10650 of 1992 and this Court was pleaded to dispose of the very writ petition with the following order: "Having regard to the aforesaid representation made by the petitioner, it is just and proper that there shall be a stay of the further proceedings of the Original Authority pending disposal of the appeal before the Special Tribunal and the Special Tribunal for co-operative cases is directed to dispose of the appeal in a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending disposal of the appeal, it is reiterated that there shall be a stay of the order of the original authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is ordered. However, there shall be no order as to costs". That the respondent had conducted the auction of his attached property on 30.6.1992 itself and had chosen to confirm the same by his proceeding in E.P.No.2/87-88, dated 31.7.1992 and its subsequent confirmation on 31.7.1992 itself; that as per the conditional order made in I.A.No.255 of 1992 in the unnumbered STCA dated 23.6.1992, the sale of the attached property ought to have been kept in abeyance atleast till 22.7.1992 the second date, the second amount was directed to be paid; that in the circumstances, the petitioner would conclude that he is constrained to file this writ petition with the prayer as sought for in the writ petition. 6. 6. In the counter filed on behalf of the first respondent, it would be contended that the petitioner joined the services of the second respondent in the year 1956 and got suspended in 1987 on the charge of misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs.13.00 lakhs; that after due enquiry, he was dismissed from service in 1988; that the petitioner having raised the Industrial Dispute to set aside the dismissal order in I.D.No.50 of 1990, the Labour Court by its judgment dated 27.10.1993, dismissed his petition; that on a complaint by the first respondent, the CCIW CID Police, Coimbatore, registered a criminal case against him and others for offences punishable under Secs.409 and 477, I.P.C., and on completion of the investigation, the CCIW Police charge sheeted the petitioner and others and the said case having been taken on file by the JM IV, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.31 of 1990 the same is pending trial. 7. Besides, the above the counter affidavit would also denounce the other allegations of the writ petition regarding the arbitration proceeding; that since the petitioner did not appear before the CSR/Arbitrator, an ex parte award was passed for an amount of Rs.7,82,467.72 dated 18.6.1990, that the appellate Authority remanded the case back to the first respondent herein for fresh disposal; that consequent to that, the case was reopened in ARC.No.88/90-91 and after due opportunity for both parties to be heard, the same is pending; that the second respondent filed a claim petition before the petitioner for the recovery of an amount of Rs.5,74,280.83 before the first respondent and the case having been transferred for arbitration at Tirupur in ARC.No.1/87-88 an award had been passed on 29.3.1989 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5,74,280.23 with subsequent interest at 18 per cent per annum. 8. 8. The further averments of the counter is that an execution petition filed by the second respondent was taken on file in E.P.No.5689 of 1990 on 21.12.1989 to execute the decree dated 29.3.1989 to bring the immovable properties of the petitioner for sale in accordance with law and the said properties had already been attached by the respondent by an order dated 17.7.1987; that the sale was held on 30.6.1992; that the third respondent was the auction purchaser of the property and after 30 days of the same, the first respondent also confirmed the sale by an order dated 31.7.1992 and not only the sale certificate was issued in favour of the third respondent, but also possession had been handed over and now, it is the third respondent who is an absolute possession and enjoyment of the property. 9. The further averments of the counter are that the petitioner failed to observe the conditional order passed in I.A.No.255 of 1992 on or before 30.6.1992 and the legal effect is that it is as good as no stay order was passed and hence, no question of stay order would arise at all; that the sale of the petitioner’s property was conducted on 30.6.1992 and the same was confirmed on 31.7.1992 and possession was also delivered to the Court auction purchaser on 12.8.1992 and hence either for the conduct of the sale or for this confirmation, there is absolutely no legal impediment since the High Court order came to be passed only on 4.8.1992 and, therefore, the allegations of the petitioner are baseless; that all the transactions concerned with the sale of the property are genuine, valid and legal that no notice in I.A.No.255 of 1995 or 381 of 1992 of STCA was served on the first or the second respondents; that no deposit of Rs.25,000 was made on or before 30.6.1992 with the second respondent in compliance of the conditions attached to the said order; that in these circumstances, the first respondent further contending that the allegations are mala fide, motivated, intentional and the averments are baseless, would ultimately pray to dismiss the writ petition with costs. 10. 10. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would almost confirm the averments of the writ petition and would state that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10650 of 1992, dated 4.8.1992 had not been complied with and in violation of the same, the auction sale had been conducted and the property had been entrusted with the third respondent, the auction purchaser. But, on the contrary, the learned Government Advocate (on the writ side) would contend that on enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and got dismissed from service in 1988; that against the dismissal order, he raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.50 of 1990 and the same got dismissed on 27.10.1993 thereby confirming the dismissal order of the disciplinary authority; that even prior to the order passed in the I.D. enquiry, this writ petition had been filed testifying the sale of the property and it is against the sale of the property alone, the petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition. 11. The learned Government Advocate would further contend that under Sec.90 of the Act, the first respondent himself had taken a suo motu arbitration proceeding and an ex parte award was passed on 18.6.1990 arriving at the figures of Rs.6,73,196.87 with interest at 18 per cent per annum towards the misappropriated amount. The learned counsel would conclude his argument that everything regarding the sale of the property had taken place in accordance with law and neither the order passed by the High Court dated 4.8.1992, nor any other provision of law is against such sale and hence there is no case for the petitioner at all. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would contend that by an order dated 23.6.1992, SPCA granted conditional stay of further proceedings that the petitioner has to deposit of Rs.25,000 with the second respondent on or before 30.6.1992 being the date of sale and the other condition that he should deposit a like sum with the second respondent on or before 21.7.1992; that the petitioner had not complied with the said conditions and only subject to these conditions, the Appellate Tribunal granted conditional stay on 30.6.1992; that the third respondent is the purchaser in the auction sale and the sale came to be confirmed on 31.7.1992. 13. 13. The petitioner’s contention is that he filed an earlier writ petition in W.P.No.10650 of 1992 in which at the admission stage, an order was passed on 4.8.1992 directing the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within three months and granting stay of execution till such time. But, before this order could be made since the Appellate Tribunal had completed the process of sale, it had become final and that the entire sale proceedings were over on 30.6.1992 itself further confirming the sale and that the sale certificate itself had been issued in favour of the third respondent on 31.7.1992; that the writ petition had been disposed of with the above directions only on 4.8.1992 to which nothing had been done. 14. At this juncture, the learned counsel would cite a judgment delivered in Narinder Chand v. Union Territory, H.P., A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2399, wherein it is held as follows: “No Court can give a direction to the Government to refrain from enforcing a provision of law. The levy of a tax can only be done by the authority of law and not by any executive order. Unless the executive is specifically empowered by law to give any exemption, it cannot say that it will not enforce the law as against a particular person”. The learned counsel would end up his argument stating that no blanket order not to enforce by a writ of mandamus could be granted. 15. A clean assessment of the pleadings of parties and having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties, what comes to be known is that the petitioner was working as the manager in the second respondent co-operative society since 1968 and got suspended pending enquiry in the year 1986 on charges of misappropriation of funds and on a thorough enquiry held against him, the offence having come to be proved, he got dismissed from service in the year 1988. It is the contention of the petitioner that a criminal case registered against him on a charge of misappropriation is under investigation and a case filed by him before the Appellate Authority against his dismissal from service is also pending. Hence, the petitioner would contend that respondents 1 and 2 should not have gone up to the extent of attaching his property and bringing it for auction sale. Hence, the petitioner would contend that respondents 1 and 2 should not have gone up to the extent of attaching his property and bringing it for auction sale. It is the further contention of the petitioner that inspite of a stay order having been granted, the respondents had conducted the auction sale and hence, he has come forward to pray to the effect of declaring the sale of the petitioner’s property dated 30.6.1992 as null and void. 16. From the various orders passed by various authorities in this case as on a perusal of the records it comes to be known, that immovable property of the petitioner had already been attached on 17.7.1987 itself; that the sale was held on 30.6.1992 and the same got confirmed besides being the third respondent who is the auction sale purchaser granted with the sale certificate on 31.7.1992 and against these proceedings, the petitioner would come to this Court and get an order of stay on 4.8.1992 within which time, much water had flown and it should be pointed out that the petitioner had miserably missed the bus in so far enforcing the order of stay of this Court as against the sale proceedings; that the third respondent had already become the owner of the property through the auction sale purchase and later, he had also been formally delivered with the possession of the property. 17. Excepting for the sale of the property of the petitioner bearing door No.20-F3, K.R.N. Koil street, Anupparpalayam, Pudur, Tirupur, so far as the service of the petitioner with the second respondent or his delinquencies committed therein or the enquiry proceedings taken against him or his very dismissal from service and such other aspects mentioned in the writ petition are concerned, they are absolutely irrelevant to the context of the case projected and the prayer embodied in the writ petition. 18. Therefore, I am able to see no infirmity or inconsistency or illegality in the whole of the proceeding taken on the part of respondents 1 and 2 either towards attaching the properties of the petitioner or bringing the same for sale in the public auction or in confirming the sale in favour of the third respondent being the successful bidder in the auction held or even delivering possession of the said property. Since I am not able to see any patent error of law or perversity in approach so far as the sale of the petitioner’s property in the public auction consequent to its attachment, the interference sought for by this Court of judicial review by the petitioner its neither justifiable nor could the same be made in the circumstances of the case. No other valid or tangible reason also exists in favour of the petitioner for any relief to be granted and hence it has to be decided that there is no case for the petitioner, nor anything substantiated before this Court much less in a valid and convincing manner thus warranting interference of this Court into the sale of the property of the petitioner by respondents 1 and 2. 19. In result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 20. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is dismissed. No costs.