ORDER The petitioners, assailing the correctness of the order dated 19th August, 2002 in dispute bearing No. DRBVDIS/2613/2001-02 and the order dated 1st July, 2004 in Appeal No. 542 of 2003 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and also the public auction notices issued dated 25th July, 2005 in Forms VIII and IX both issued under Rule 38(2)(d) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 on the file of second respondent, vide Annexures-A, B, D and E respectively, have presented the instant writ petition. Further, they have sought for a direction, directing the first respondent to act on Annexures-C and C1 and to grant concession on OTS basis as per RBI guidelines for One Time Settlement. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in the instant writ petition is that, the first petitioner had availed the loan from the first respondent-Malleshwaram Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter called the 'Bank') for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs for the purpose of construction of house. But, it appears the first petitioner could not get good rent to keep up with the payment of necessary instalments to the first respondent as was agreed upon at the time of availing the loan. Due to financial constraints, beyond the control of the first petitioner, he has become defaulter. In view of non-payment of necessary instalments as was agreed upon, the first respondent-Bank was constrained to raise a dispute before the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority has referred the matter to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, has passed the award dated 19th August, 2002 vide Annexure-A. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Arbitrator, petitioners herein have filed the appeal No. 542 of 2003 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal'). The said appeal had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 1st July, 2004. The Tribunal, after considering all the grounds urged by the petitioners in the memorandum of appeal and after evaluation of original records made available by the State Representative, has dismissed the appeal by giving specific finding at paragraph 9 of its order, confirming the award passed by the Arbitrator inspite of passing of the award by the Arbitrator and its confirmation by the Tribunal, petitioners have not made any sincere efforts to satisfy the award. The first respondent-Bank was therefore constrained to file an execution petition. In the execution petition, the Recovery Officer, the second respondent herein, has issued the impugned public auction notice in Forms VIII and IX under Rule 38(2)(d) of the Rules. At this stage, petitioners felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition, assailing the correctness of the impugned orders passed by Arbitrator, Tribunal and the public auction notices, referred above. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for respondents. After careful perusal of the award passed by the Arbitrator and the order passed by the Tribunal, it emerges on the face of both the orders that, both the authorities have not committed any error much less material irregularity in passing the impugned orders. Both the authorities, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and after giving opportunity to petitioners have recorded concurrent finding of fact against the petitioners and held that, they are liable to pay the balance amount as per the award. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners, they have failed to comply with the award passed by the Arbitrator. Even when the matter was pending adjudication before the Tribunal, petitioners have failed to make sincere efforts to pay the necessary amount as mentioned in the award. Therefore, I do not find any error or illegality as such committed by the both the authorities in passing the impugned orders. Hence, interference in the impugned orders passed by both the authorities by this Court under such circumstances is not justifiable. Be that as it may. Inspite of confirmation of the judgment and award passed by the Arbitrator, by the Appellate Authority - Tribunal, petitioners have failed to satisfy the award. The first respondent-Bank was therefore constrained to file an execution petition on the file of the second respondent in CEP No. 2669:2002-03 and CEP No. AR.E.UBF:8161:05-06 and thereafter, the second respondent has issued the impugned public auction notice dated 25th July, 2005 issued under Rule 38(2)(d) in Forms VIII and IX vide Annexures-D and E, fixing the date of auction of the property on 2nd September, 2005. 4. 4. When this matter had come up for preliminary hearing on 30th August, 2005, in view of the persuasion made by learned Counsel for petitioners and the assurance given by him on instructions from petitioners that, interim order may be granted subject to condition that petitioners undertake to pay Rs. 3 lakhs (Rupees Three lakhs only) within ten days from that date, and also having regard to the difficulty expressed by the learned Counsel for petitioners regarding the financial constraints of petitioners and also having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that, the loan was availed for the purpose of construction of house, this Court, in order to give one more opportunity to petitioners to pay some responsable amount to first respondent-Bank, granted the interim order of stay, subject to condition that, petitioners shall pay a sum of Rupees Three lakhs within ten days from that date. When the matter is taken up for consideration today, learned Counsel appearing for first respondent-Bank submitted that, petitioners have not complied with the conditional interim order granted by this Court on 30th August, 2005. The said submission is not disputed by the learned Counsel for petitioners. He submitted that, in spite of making his best efforts to comply with the conditional interim order granted by this Court, all his efforts went in vain. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, it discloses that, the conduct of the petitioners is not fair. It is nothing but abuse of the process of Court, the Tribunal and the authorities. When it has come to the neck of the petitioners, they have filed the appeal before the Tribunal and not made any sincere efforts to show any bona fide whatsoever, or at least before this Court by depositing the stipulated amount in the interim order granted by this Court. Therefore, in my view, such persons are not entitled to seek for any relief at the hands of this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good grounds or justification to interfere in the impugned orders passed by both the authorities, namely Arbitrator and the Tribunal. Both the authorities, after critical evaluation of oral and documentary evidence have recorded concurrent finding of fact against the petitioners. 5. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good grounds or justification to interfere in the impugned orders passed by both the authorities, namely Arbitrator and the Tribunal. Both the authorities, after critical evaluation of oral and documentary evidence have recorded concurrent finding of fact against the petitioners. In view of the well-settled law laid down by the Apex Court in host of judgments, it is crystal clear that, once the Tribunal/Appellate Authority and the Competent Authority have recorded concurrent finding of fact against a party, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, interference by this Court, in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not justifiable except in rarest of rare cases. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition filed by petitioners is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to be paid to first respondent-Bank within two weeks from today. If the said amount is not paid by petitioners, the first respondent-Bank is directed to recover the said amount from the petitioners in accordance with law.