( 1 ) THE petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the Auction Notification dated 15. 7. 2003 (Ann. E) in respect of the property bearing site No. 1716/1615/2157 issued by the 1st respondent has presented this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that, she is the owner of the property bearing No. 2903/2743 measuring an extent of 22' x 56'. The property originally belonged to one Smt. Hombamma, wife of late Lakkaiah who has executed a registered sale deed on 17. 2. 1986 and sold the property in favour of the petitioners father for a valuable consideration. At the time of purchase, there was no entry of mortgage or any encumbrance in the encumbrance certificate. The petitioners father out of love and affection had gifted the said property to the petitioner under the registered gift deed (Annexure-C ). Be that as it may. The 2nd respondent has issued sale notice purporting to auction the property for the loan borrowed by Smt. Hombamma during the year 1982-83. On enquiry, petitioner came to know that said Hombamma has failed to pay the loan amount to the 3rd respondent Bank and the matter was referred to the Arbitrator who in turn has passed the award and in pursuance of that award, the 2nd respondent being the Recovery- cum Sale Officer has issued the impugned Auction Notification. Feeling aggrieved by the said Notification, the petitioner has approached this court. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for 3rd respondent at a considerable length of time. ( 4 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is on two folds. Firstly, the 2nd respondent has issued the Auction Notification without following the mandatory requirement of the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and Rules, and secondly, he has failed to follow the procedures prescribed under section 101 and Rule 38 of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules and therefore, he has submitted that the impugned Notification issued by the 2nd respondent as per. Annexure-E is not at all sustainable. ( 5 ) PER contra, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent inter-alia contended and justified the impugned Notification issued by the 2nd respondent. Annexure-E is not at all sustainable. ( 5 ) PER contra, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent inter-alia contended and justified the impugned Notification issued by the 2nd respondent. He has pointed out that the petitioner has no locus-standi to maintain this writ petition, as she is not an interested party nor she has produced any iota of documents to establish that on the basis of the alleged gift deed her name was entered in the relevant records. Further he has submitted that the petitioners father has filed an appeal in No. 44/2003 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, challenging the award passed by the Arbitrator and the said appeal was pending consideration. To substantiate his submission, he has also produced the copy of the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioners father before the Tribunal and nowhere it is stated that the land in question was gifted to his daughter the present petitioner. But, he has submitted to the Tribunal that, after purchasing the land, he has filed an application before the municipal authority for change of katha and the property stands in his name and assessment also stands in his name and he has paid the necessary tax and he has also produced the assessment katha extract tax paid receipts and other documents like sanctioned plan by the competent authority for putting up RCC roofed residential house in the vacant site along with the memorandum of appeal. Therefore, the learned counsel has submitted that this is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the present writ petition is misconceived and the petitioner has not whispered anything regarding the appeal filed by her father before the Tribunal. Therefore, he has submitted that the writ petition is liable to be rejected. ( 6 ) THE learned Government pleader for respondents 1 and 2 on instructions submitted that, the recital of the sale deed executed by one Srnt. Hombamma in favour of the petitioners father is crystal clear and also there is a reference regarding the loan obtained by Smt. Hombamma and this fact has been stated by the petitioners father in the memorandum of appeal filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and under what circumstances he has purchased the property in question. Hombamma in favour of the petitioners father is crystal clear and also there is a reference regarding the loan obtained by Smt. Hombamma and this fact has been stated by the petitioners father in the memorandum of appeal filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and under what circumstances he has purchased the property in question. Therefore, he has submitted that the writ petition is liable to be rejected at threshold on the ground that the petitioner has no locus- standi to maintain this writ petition when the matter is seized by the competent authority challenging the award passed by the Arbitrator. Therefore, he has submitted that the 2nd respondent has not committed any error or illegality in issuing the Auction Notification as per Annexure-E. ( 7 ) I have perused the impugned Notification issued by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-E, re-evaluated the entire materials available on record, including the documents made available by the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for 3rd respondent. ( 8 ) AFTER thorough scanning of the entire materials available on record, it is manifest on the face of the record and proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the petitioner has intentionally and deliberately suppressed the material facts before this court and presented this misconceived, frivolous and vexatious petition. This is nothing but an abuse of process of law and such litigations should not be encouraged. ( 9 ) IT is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent has raised the dispute under section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, before the Arbitrator, who in turn, has passed the award and the said award was challenged by the petitioners father and also one Smt. Hombamma and both the appeals are pending adjudication before the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners father has filed an appeal before the Tribunal and to substantiate his case, he has taken several grounds and also narrated the facts in detail, as submitted by the learned counsel for 3rd respondent. The petitioners father has stated in unequivocal terms before the Tribunal in the memorandum of appeal that, the property in question stands in his name; the katha and assessment are also stand in his name; after obtaining sanctioned plan from the competent authority, he has put up the RCC roofed residential house and he has also produced the photograph to show that the house was constructed. When the appeal filed by the petitioners father was pending adjudication before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner intentionally and deliberately has not whispered anything about the pendency of the appeal in the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands by stating true facts. Hence, I am of the considered view that the writ petition is misconceived and petitioner has no locus-standi to maintain this petition. ( 10 ) IT is significant to note here itself that, the petitioner to substantiate her case has stated in unequivocal terms before this court that, the land in question stands in the name of the petitioner as per assessment extract as per Annexure-B, but the same stands in the name of the petitioners father. Therefore, it proves that the petitioner has not produced any authenticated documents to show that her name is entered on the basis of the alleged gift deed executed by the father of the petitioner, nor it is the case of the petitioners father before the Appellate Tribunal that, he has gifted the said site to the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. ( 11 ) YET another reason, the writ petition is liable to be rejected at threshold on the ground that, the petitioner knowing fully well that her father has filed an appeal before the Tribunal and obtained an exparte interim order and the respondents have filed necessary application for vacating the interim order and the Tribunal has directed to call for the records through the State Representative appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal, where the matter is pending adjudication and also the Tribunal has directed the parties to be present before the Tribunal to identify them, in view of the affidavit filed by Smt. Hombamma stating that she has not filed any appeal before the Tribunal and the same is pending adjudication before the Tribunal, instead of making necessary application before the Tribunal itself, the petitioner has presented this writ petition by suppressing the facts. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands and not stated the true facts and on the ground of suppression of materials facts, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands and not stated the true facts and on the ground of suppression of materials facts, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and taking into consideration the factual and legal aspect of the matter as enumerated above, do not find any justification to interfere with the auction sale notification issued by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has not made out any grounds to set aside the impugned auction notification and the interference at this sage is uncalled for. ( 13 ) FOR the forgoing reasons, the writ petition sands dismissed subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/- to be payable to the 3rd respondent within two weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. --- *** --- .