ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.— An extent of 2 acres 80 cents of land in Sy 153/2 of Hirebettu village, Udupi taluk and district had been granted in favour of one Vittu Naik under grant order No. DR 561/1969 dated 22-7-1969. It appears, the grantee had mortgaged this land in favour of first Respondent-bank as per mortgage transaction dated 24-4-1998, but nevertheless retained possession of the land. The borrower having defaulted in repayment of loan, the bank, it appears, had taken steps to raise a dispute for recovery of loan amount and the matter went before arbitrator resulted in an award in favour of the bank and in execution of the award, the subject land had been sold through revenue authorities for a sum of Rs.5,08,500/- as per auction sale dated 29-9-2005. 2. Thereafter, the assistant registrar of cooperative societies has passed the impugned order dated 21-7-2010 [copy at Annexure-E to the writ petition], purporting to exercise his power under Section 71 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 [for short, KCS Act] affirming the auction sale. 3. It is contending to be aggrieved by this sale confirmation order, the present writ petition seeking for quashing of this order. 4. Notices had been issued to the Respondents. Though served, first Respondent-bank remained unrepresented. Respondents 2 and 3 are represented by Sri R Omkumar, learned AGA and Sri K A Ariga, learned Counsel, appears for fourth Respondent-auction purchaser. 5. I have heard Sri Harish Ganapatny, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 6. 4. Notices had been issued to the Respondents. Though served, first Respondent-bank remained unrepresented. Respondents 2 and 3 are represented by Sri R Omkumar, learned AGA and Sri K A Ariga, learned Counsel, appears for fourth Respondent-auction purchaser. 5. I have heard Sri Harish Ganapatny, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 6. Submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the subject land being a granted land the transaction being a sale in favour of first Respondent-bank, though the land had been mortgaged in favour of the bank by the original grantee and for non-payment of borrowed amount, the land had been brought to sale, in execution of the award passed by the registrar in arbitration proceedings between the bank and the grantee, it, nevertheless, attracts the provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [for short, the PTCL Act], being a transaction subsequent to the PTCL Act coming into force; that the sale transaction is not saved under Section 7 of PTCL Act, as it is a second transaction and therefore the assistant registrar could not have confirmed such auction sale, as it is in contravention of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. 7. On the other hand, Sri K.A. Ariga, learned Counsel for fourth Respondent, submits that in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. H.S. Lakshmamma Vs. Sri K.K. Ahammed Kutty and Others, ILR (2008) KAR 3528 , a transaction of the present nature is also saved under Section 7 of the PTCL Act, as the provisions of the PTCL Act are not applicable and in identical situation, this Court had upheld the court auction sale and also held that auction purchaser is entitled for recovery of possession etc. and therefore no need for interference. 8. and therefore no need for interference. 8. Sri R Omkumar, learned AGA, submits that in fact the first Respondent-bank has obtained permission of the state government on 5-12-2009 for the transaction i.e. court auction sale and though auction sale was held on 29-5-2005 nevertheless the sale transaction having not been completed and affirmation being only under the impugned order at Annexure E and thereafter sale deed has to be executed and registered, permission granted prior to such registration is to be taken as prior permission within the scope of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act and therefore no need for interference. 9. Learned AGA also points out that as against the impugned order, apart from the questions raised, Petitioners have a remedy by way of an appeal under Section 105 of KCS Act. 10. In so far as the challenge to the confirmation order is concerned, it is at a nascent stage for the purpose of examination of the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of the PTCL Act. The main ground urged on behalf of the Petitioners is the manner of operation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act and limited extent of operation Section 7 of the PTCL Act etc. Assuming these are questions which have some significance and importance, they do not directly arise in the present case and if at all they are questions which can be examined in a matter arising under the provisions of the PTCL Act and in the instant case, there being no proceedings taken under the provisions of the PTCL Act, no occasion to examine such contentions at this stage. 11. Suffice to say that the present writ petition does not has sufficient merit to interfere with the affirmation order at this stage and while this writ petition is dismissed, it is open to the Petitioners to pursue not only the statutory remedies under the KCS Act but also to invoke the provisions of the PTCL Act, if so advised for relief under this Act.