JUDGMENT C.R. DASH, J. : This writ petition arises out of the judgment dated 03.03.2010 (Annexure-10) passed by the Member, Co-operative Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, confirming the order dated 02.09.2009 (Annexure-9) passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Baripada Circle, Mayurbhanj (opp. party no.2). 2. Petitioner is admittedly a lonee under opposite party no.1. He had availed housing lone of Rs.1,50,000/- (one lakh fifty thousand) in the year 1996, but defaulted in payment of the loan amount. Opposite party no.1 initiated Dispute Case No. 171 of 1999-2000 under Section 68 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 alleging non-payment by the petitioner. The Arbitrator, vide Annexure-2, disposed of the Dispute Case on 28.01.2000 and directed repayment of Rs.1,80,912/- (one lakh eighty thousand nine hundred and twelve) by the petitioner along with further interest @ 15.3% on the principal and P.I. as applicable on O.D. interest till full realization of the dues. It is found from the order vide Annexure-2 that in the said Dispute Case the adult son of the petitioner had appeared and stated that due to financial stringency the instalments dues of the loan could not be cleared in time. The order of the Arbitrator, vide Annexure-2, attained finality, as the same was not challenged by the petitioner at any point of time. While matter stood thus, revitalization of the Co-operative Housing Sector By One-Time Interest Relief/Concession Scheme-2001 (Annexure-1 series) came into operation. Opposite party no.1, vide Special Demand Notice dated 26.12.2001, Annex¬ure-5, invited the petitioner to take the benefit of the afore¬said Interest Relief Scheme by 31.03.2002. There is nothing on record as to what was the response of the petitioner to the said Notice, vide Annexure-5. Thereafter, on the basis of the decree passed by the Arbitrator in Dispute Case No. 171 of 1999-2000 E.D. Case No. 1080 of 2002-03 was initiated against the petition¬er and Auction Sale Notice of the mortgaged property of the peti¬tioner was published in the locality in 2006. 3. Petitioner approached this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 4588 of 2006 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to make determination of the dues payable by him under the scheme, vide present Annexure-1 (Annexure-3 of the earlier writ application) and to further direct the opposite parties not to take any coer¬cive action against the petitioner until determination of the value payable by him. 4. This Court, vide order dated 08.08.2006 passed in Misc. 4. This Court, vide order dated 08.08.2006 passed in Misc. Case No. 8760 of 2006 (arising out of W.P.(C) No. 4588 of 2006) stayed sale of the mortgaged property of the petitioner subject to his depositing Rs.15,000/- (fifteen thousand) within seven days. Finally, on 14.07.2009 this Court vide order in Annexure-6 dismissed the aforesaid W.P.(C) No. 4588 of 2006 with the obser¬vation thus - “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall approach the opposite parties in this regard. It is open to the petitioner to do so within a period of two weeks hence. If the One Time Settlement Scheme is still in operation and the peti¬tioner satisfies the guidelines to avail the scheme, opposite parties 1 and 3 shall consider the same and pass necessary orders within a period of three weeks thereafter.” 5. After disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner approached the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Baripada Circle, Mayurbhanj (opp. party no.2), praying to extend him the benefits under the Interest Relief/Concession Scheme, 2001 (Annexure-1). Opposite party no.2, vide order dated 02.09.2009 (Annexure-9) dismissed the petition of the petitioner on the ground that the scheme, under which the petitioner is claiming benefit, was in force till 31.03.2009 and no benefit can be extended to the petitioner under the scheme after its closure. Impugning the order vide Annexure-9, the petitioner approached the Co-operative Tribunal. Learned Co-operative Tribunal, vide order dated 03.03.2010 in Annexure-10, dismissed the appeal on the same ground holding that the scheme in question having been closed since 31.03.2009, no benefit under the scheme can be extended to the petitioner. After dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner vide Annexure-10, the sale notice vide Annexure-11 in respect of the mortgaged property of the petitioner has been issued. 6. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the prayer to quash the impugned orders in Annexure 9 and 10 and further to quash the Sale Notice, vide Annexure-11. Grievance of the petitioner is that without properly interpreting the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 4588 of 2006, the orders in Annexure 9 and 10 have come to be passed. In order to substantiate his contention, Mr. M.K. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on paragraph-6 of the Revitalization of Co-operative Housing Sector By One-Time Interest Relief/Concession Scheme -2001 (Annexure-1 series), which reads as follows- “6. In order to substantiate his contention, Mr. M.K. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on paragraph-6 of the Revitalization of Co-operative Housing Sector By One-Time Interest Relief/Concession Scheme -2001 (Annexure-1 series), which reads as follows- “6. All decrees/award originating from all legal proceeding under the OCS Act will be re-looked in the light of the Scheme, provided decree holder society and the judgment debtor agrees to close the loan account.” 7. It is contended by Mr. M.K. Mallick, learned counsel for the petitioner that during the currency of the Scheme vide Annexure-1 series, the petitioner having approached this Court claiming the relief of determination of the dues payable by him, opposite party no.2 is duty bound to consider the proposal of the petitioner in the light of paragraph-6 of the scheme quoted supra. Further it is contended that opposite party no.1 being the lender having not approached the petitioner at any point of time for settlement of the dues payable by the petitioner, it opp. party no.1) cannot now take the plea of closure of the scheme when the present petitioner approached this Court for the relief during currency of the scheme. 8. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.1, on the other hand, taking us through the counter affidavit by opposite party no.1 and Annexure-5, submits that after introduction of the scheme the petitioner was issued with Special Demand Notice vide Annexure-5 for settlement of his dues, but in vain, in as much as the petitioner did not respond to the said notice. Petitioner being disadvantaged on issue of Sale Notice of the mortgaged property in 2006, approached this Court with a view to delay the matter, though he had no locus standi to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after passing of decree by the Arbitrator, vide Annexure-2. This Court, after hearing the parties at length, dismissed the writ petition with the observation of extending benefit of the scheme, vie Annexure-1 series, to the petitioner, if it is still in operation. It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra that the scheme in question having already been closed, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner under paragraph-6 of the scheme. 9. It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra that the scheme in question having already been closed, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner under paragraph-6 of the scheme. 9. Having heard the parties at length and having considered the materials placed by learned counsels for the par¬ties, we are constrained to hold that paragraph-6 of the scheme cannot be read in isolation and it is to be read in consonance with the objects of the scheme and other provisions contained in the scheme. Paragraph-6 is indicative of a situation where de¬cree/award has been passed against lonees for repayment, and irrespective of such awards/decrees, benefit of the scheme can be extended to the judgment-debtors if both decree-holders and judgment-debtors agree to close the loan account. Paragraph-6 of the scheme cannot be extended to include any decree or award passed after closure of the scheme nor it survives the scheme to take care of the decree/award passed after closure of the scheme. Only because the petitioner had approached this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 4588 of 2006 during currency of the scheme in ques¬tion, it cannot be held that the scheme under Annexure-1 series survives for the benefit of the petitioner till disposal of the writ petition. Being conscious of the duration of the scheme, this Court, while dismissing W.P.(C) No. 4588 of 2006, has clear¬ly mentioned that the benefit under the scheme may be extended to the petitioner, if the scheme is still in operation. The Scheme in question having already been closed since 31.03.2009, much prior to passing of the order in W.P.(C) No. 4588 of 2006, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned orders, vide Annexure 9 and 10. 10. Coming to question of non-initiation of any action by the opposite party No.1 for settlement of the dues payable by the petitioner under the scheme after its introduction, it is found from perusal of Annexure-5 that after introduction of the scheme in the year 2001, special demand notice was issued by opposite party No.1 to the petitioner for settlement of his dues under the scheme. There is nothing on record to show how and when the petitioner responded to such notice vide Annexure-5. Per contra it is submitted by Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the peti¬tioner that the petitioner never responded to the notice vide Annexure-5. 11. There is nothing on record to show how and when the petitioner responded to such notice vide Annexure-5. Per contra it is submitted by Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the peti¬tioner that the petitioner never responded to the notice vide Annexure-5. 11. the scheme in question vide Annexure-1 series was in operation from 2001 to 31.03.2009. Despite existence of a decree against the petitioner (passed in Dispute Case No. 171/1999-2000), opposite party no.1 invited the petitioner vide annexure-5 for settlement of the dues. If the matter would have been settled on response by the petitioner to the notice vide Annexure-5, such settlement would have been one under Paragraph-6 of the scheme, which Mr. M.K. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner is stretching too far even to include award/decree passed after closure of the scheme. We are constrained, however, to hold that the petitioner did not respond to the notice vide Annexure-5 as there is nothing on record to show that petitioner responded to the said notice. Opposite party no.1, therefore, cannot be blamed for non-action as alleged by the petitioner. 12. In view of the discussion as aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dis¬missed. L. MOHAPATRA, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.