JUDGMENT : S.N. PRASAD, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsels for opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and opposite party No. 3. 2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing Annexure-4 in which the plea of possession of the auction of the landed property by which the Secretary has requested the Sub-Collector, Puri to depute Magistrate for handing over possession of auctioned landed property at Harachandi Sahi to the auction purchaser Udayanath Panda. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner took loan of Rs.4 lakhs from the opposite party No. 1-Bank by mortgaging his house standing on Khata No. 659/40 appertaining to Plot No. 251/1212 with an area of Acre 0.018 decibels to set up his own business. 4. The loan agreement was executed between the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 in which the father of the petitioner stood as a guarantor. The petitioner could not succeed in his own business and sustained huge loss and consequently he could not repay the loan amount with interest to the opposite party No. 1 within time. Thus, the opposite party No. 1 filed Dispute Case No. 161/2009-10 before the opposite party No. 2 for realisation of an amount of Rs.6,39,564/- under Section 68 of Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962, the petitioner was directed to appear on 04.02.2010, the petitioner appeared on the date fixed and prayed for time to report his written statement but the opposite party No. 2 has not adjourned the case, on 27.10.2010 the petitioner came to know that on 4.2.2010 itself the award was passed without following the procedures provided under Rule 78 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Rules. 5. The petitioner came to know about the award only on 27.10.2010 when a notice in Form-8 under Section 138 of OCS Rules was served upon the elder brother of the petitioner intimating therein about the initiation of Execution Proceeding No. 11/2010-11. 6. The petitioner entered appearance in E.P. No. 11/2010-11 through his advocate. But thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Co-operative Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar being T.A. No. 32 of 2012 challenging the correctness of award passed by the opposite party No. 2. However, the appeal was rejected on the ground of maintainability since it should have been filed before the Registrar to set aside the auction sale. 7. But thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Co-operative Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar being T.A. No. 32 of 2012 challenging the correctness of award passed by the opposite party No. 2. However, the appeal was rejected on the ground of maintainability since it should have been filed before the Registrar to set aside the auction sale. 7. Thereafter, the property was put to public auction by opposite party No. 1 and one Udayanath Panda being the highest bidder became the auction purchaser of the said land. The said auction sale was confirmed by the opposite party No. 2 but the possession of the said property has not been handed over to the auction purchaser. The opposite party No. 1 has made request to the Sub-Collector, Puri for handing over the possession in favour of the auction purchaser which is impugned in this writ petition. 8. In T.A. No. 32 of 2012, the father of the petitioner who was the guarantor filed an application to allow him to deposit sum of Rs.4 lakhs towards the outstanding dues on 08.01.2013 but not accepted. 9. The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property in question is the residential accommodation which is the only dwelling house of the petitioner and if he will be dispossessed from the same he will be on road hence prayer has been made to set aside Annexure-4. 10. The opposite party No. 1-Bank has appeared and filed counter affidavit stating inter-alia therein that the petitioner has taken loan, not paid hence Dispute Case No. 161/2009-2010 has been registered in the Court of Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Puri, notices have been issued to the petitioner as well as the guarantor. On seeing such notices, the petitioner appeared in person on the date fixed i.e., on 04.02.2010 and admitted to pay the outstanding amount intimated the Court that he would do so within two or three months. Accordingly, award was passed by the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Puri, keeping in view the written undertaking dated 04.02.2010 which is at Annexure-A/1. 11. But the petitioner avoided to deposit the loan amount outstanding against time frame which led to initiation of an Execution Case bearing No. 11/2011-12. Notice in Form-8 as required under Rule 138 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Rules was served upon the petitioner. 11. But the petitioner avoided to deposit the loan amount outstanding against time frame which led to initiation of an Execution Case bearing No. 11/2011-12. Notice in Form-8 as required under Rule 138 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Rules was served upon the petitioner. But in spite of receipt of such notice on 27.10.2010, he has not chosen to appear. It has been stated that the petitioner later moved before the Member, Co-operative Tribunal, Orissa in two separate appeals registered as Societies in T.A. No. 23 of 2011 and T.A. No. 24 of 2011 long after the periods of limitation prescribed T.A. No. 23 of 2011 was preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the notice of sale in Form No. 10 and Form No. 11 issued by the learned Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies-cum-Principal Officer, Puri Circle in Execution Case No. 11/2010-11, whereas T.A. No. 24 of 2011 was directed against the order dated 4.2.2010 passed by the learned Arbitrator in Dispute Case No. 161/2009-10. 12. On being summoned the opposite party No. 1 entered appearance and submitted his written submission opposing the relief sought for by the petitioner, appeals were automatically dismissed for default of the appellant as a result of which interim order of stay passed by the learned Tribunal stood vacated. 13. The money which has been borrowed being public money from the Bank put the property in auction, the opposite party No. 3 has declared to be the highest bidder, accordingly he has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,66,200/- on 3.12.2011 and further sum of Rs.6,64,800/- in full and final settlement of the bid amount. The auction was confirmed by the Sale Officer on 16.02.2012 which was intimated to the petitioner vide memo No. 536 dated 16.2.2012 and to the Bank as well as to the auction purchaser vide separate memos of the even date. 14. After confirmation of sale, the auction purchaser approached opposite party nos. 1 and 2 for handing over possession of the auctioned properties. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 2 took action as per law and intimated the petitioner, the auction purchaser, the opposite party No. 1-Bank as well as officials like the Sub-Collector, the Inspector-in-Charge of the concerned police station and the Executive Magistrate with regard to delivery of possession on 24.12.2012. 1 and 2 for handing over possession of the auctioned properties. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 2 took action as per law and intimated the petitioner, the auction purchaser, the opposite party No. 1-Bank as well as officials like the Sub-Collector, the Inspector-in-Charge of the concerned police station and the Executive Magistrate with regard to delivery of possession on 24.12.2012. Referring to this stand it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the Bank when the sale has been made absolute property has been put an auction, the opposite party No. 3 has purchased the property, the petitioner has got no legal vested right to say that he will not be dispossessed from the property. 15. The opposite party No. 3 has also put his appearance and filed detail counter affidavit stating inter-alia therein that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joiner of necessary party. 16. It has been stated that vide order dated 04.02.2010, the Arbitrator, Co-operative Societies, Puri Circle, Puri has decided the case against the petitioner and order has been passed in respect of Rs.6,69,926/- as principal, along with interest of Rs. 2830/- total Rs. 6,72,756/- with future interest till the date of realisation and to enforce the order, Execution Petition No. 11/2010 was filed for delivery of possession of the property in question because the opposite party No. 3 being the highest bidder of Rs. 8,31,000/- has been found to be purchaser of the property in question. 17. It has been submitted that once the property has been purchased by the opposite party No. 3 in the execution proceeding, the petitioner has got no legal vested right to say that he be not dispossessed from the property in question. 18. It has been argued that the sale has been confirmed and the order passed in Dispute Case is to be executed by Asst. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Puri Circle, Puri. 19. It has also been argued that this writ petition is not maintainable on account of having provision of appeal under Section 109(1)(m) read with Section 103 of Orissa Co-operative societies Act, 1962. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Puri Circle, Puri. 19. It has also been argued that this writ petition is not maintainable on account of having provision of appeal under Section 109(1)(m) read with Section 103 of Orissa Co-operative societies Act, 1962. It has further been contended that invoking provision of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not available to such litigant who merely on the ground of principle of equity and if the principle of equity is contrary to the settled law, law will prevail and not the principle of equity. Referring to the said settled proposition of it has been contended that in this case the opposite party No. 3 being the highest bidder has purchased the property in the process and execution of the order passed in Dispute Case by the competent authority, the said order has been confirmed by the appellate authority, the order passed in dispute case has attained its finality hence the order passed by the competent authority under the statute cannot be frustrated on the ground of principle of equity. It has further been contended that no order can be passed merely on the ground of sympathy. 20. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has vehemently refuted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has been accrued with a legal vested right by virtue of interim order passed by this Court by which interim order has been granted not to dispossess the petitioner if the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs.4 lakhs with the Puri Urban Co-operative Bank, Puri within a period of two weeks since the petitioner has deposited the said amount hence a legal vested right has been accrued in favour of the petitioner. 21. 21. Refuting to this submission it has been contended by learned counsel for the parties and has submitted that by virtue of interim order dated 01.07.2013 which has been passed in absence of auction purchaser because the petitioner initially has not impleaded the auction purchaser as party to the writ petition and only on 1.7.2013 by virtue of liberty granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner, auction purchaser has been impleaded as opposite party No. 3 while the petitioner was knowing the fact well that the property has been auctioned to the opposite party No. 3 the auction purchaser, the petitioner ought to have approached with a clean hand but suppressing the material fact regarding the order passed in appeal and other relevant facts. Moreover, by virtue of interim order no legal vested right will be said to have been accrued in favour of the petitioner. Further the interim order has been passed that the confirmation of the sale in favour of the auction purchaser shall be subject to the final result of the writ application. Hence, confirmation of sale will depend upon the outcome of the writ petition and in the writ petition there is no merit at all after the order passed in Dispute Case having been confirmed in appeal also. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 22. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that on the ground of equity and social justice the relief sought for by the writ petitioner is fit to be allowed. 23. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner as indicated herein above, the facts needs to be discussed. 24. Undisputed fact in this case is that the petitioner has borrowed loan from the Co-operative bank, the same has not been paid. Dispute has been raised under Section 68 of Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 being Dispute Case No. 161/2009-10 in which award was passed on 04.02.2010 on the basis of undertaking given by the petitioner to repay the loan within two or three months, but the undertaking has not been complied with. Accordingly, the execution case has been filed before the competent authority. 25. In execution proceeding, the petitioner has not chosen to appear. The petitioner has filed appeal before the appellate authority but the same was dismissed in default. Accordingly, the execution case has been filed before the competent authority. 25. In execution proceeding, the petitioner has not chosen to appear. The petitioner has filed appeal before the appellate authority but the same was dismissed in default. No steps have been taken for its restoration hence the order passed in E.P. No. 11/2010-11 has attained its finality. The executing authority has proceeded further for execution of the award passed in Dispute Case No. 161/2009-10, property has been put in auction, opposite party No. 3 being the highest bidder has declared to be successful bidder and accordingly he has deposited the consideration amount and when the delivery of possession of award to be given in favour of opposite party No. 3, this writ petition has been filed praying therein to quash Annexure-4 which is the request having been made by the Secretary, Puri Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Puri to the Sub-Collector, Puri for deputing a Magistrate in order to maintain law and order situation for the purpose of handing over the delivery of possession of the auctioned landed property in favour of the opposite party No. 3. Thus, from perusal of the entire pleading it is evident that the petitioner has accepted the award passed in Dispute Case No. 161/2009-10. 26. Now question arises that when the award passed under a statutory provision as contained in Orissa Co-operative Societies act, 1962 under Section 68 of the same, have attained its finality, it has to be executed and accordingly appropriate proceedings have been initiated for execution of the order as per the power conferred under Section 103(c) which is to be executed by the Auditor-General now the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies and accordingly execution proceeding has been initiated. It is settled that if any award, order, decree, judgment if attained finality it has to be executed otherwise there will be no value of an order/award/judgment. 27. The petitioner admittedly has not challenged the award passed in Dispute Case No. 161/2009-10. The petitioner has rather given an undertaking for depositing an amount when the matter was under consideration before the competent authority in Dispute Case No. 161/2009-10 but undertaking has not been complied with, appeal preferred but dismissed in default however, no steps have been taken for its restoration. 28. The petitioner has rather given an undertaking for depositing an amount when the matter was under consideration before the competent authority in Dispute Case No. 161/2009-10 but undertaking has not been complied with, appeal preferred but dismissed in default however, no steps have been taken for its restoration. 28. If public money has been borrowed from the financial institution like Bank it has to be repaid and in case of non-payment the Bank as per agreement is supposed to put the property in auction for the purpose of recovery of borrowed amount for which Bank in this case has gone for auction by way of public notice, but at that time also the petitioner has not challenged the said auction notice. 29. The opposite party No. 3 being the highest bidder has been declared successful bidder and accordingly the sale has been confirmed, communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 536 dated 16.02.2012 but even thereafter the petitioner has not approached to the competent court of law rather it is only after the Secretary has requested the Sub-Collector for deputing the Magistrate this writ petition has been filed on the ground of principle of equity and social justice. It is settled that principle of equity is a measure for extending justice within the framework of law and a party cannot be permitted to give justice on the basis of equity if the facts is contrary to the law. 30. Here in this case award having been attained its finality, property has been put on auction, opposite party No. 3 has purchased the property hence principle of equity demands property be handed over to the opposite party No. 3 otherwise if on the basis of principle of equity, the property will not be handed over in favour of the opposite party No. 3, there will be no meaning of judicial order or quasi judicial order. 31. 31. So far as other contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, justice demands the property in question since it is the dwelling house of the petitioner the same may remain under the possession of the petitioner, this cannot be accepted because when any proceeding has been initiated, party has participated in the proceeding, failed to comply with undertaking so only on the basis of principle of equity and social justice, no relief can be granted moreover on sympathy no order can be passed by a court of law. 32. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs hence substantial right has been accrued to the petitioner because of the reason that by virtue of interim order in a proceeding no substantial right will be said to have been accrued in favour of the petitioner. The interim order which has been granted by the court of law only in order to know the stand of other parties and during pendency of the writ petition the party may not be put at loss if the party will succeed in the litigation the interim order is passed that too a conditional order to the effect that confirmation of sale in favour of the auction purchaser will depend upon the final result of the writ application. But nothing has been argued regarding commission of illegality in the auction purchase or in the confirmation of sale rather the fact has been admitted that there is default, there is dispute case, there is award against the petitioner, lost in appeal, property put on auction, purchased by the opposite party No. 3. 33. Now only question of delivery of possession hence nothing has been argued regarding the action of the authorities showing illegal action in putting the property in auction and confirming the sale. 34. 33. Now only question of delivery of possession hence nothing has been argued regarding the action of the authorities showing illegal action in putting the property in auction and confirming the sale. 34. It is settled that power conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is only to be exercised if there is any violation of legal vested right, if there is illegal action performed by the authority suffering from malice or prejudice but nothing has been pointed out like this rather it has been admitted that the action of the authority is correct but the petitioner may be permitted to remain in the possession of the property because the landed property is the only dwelling house. Thus, on sympathy prayer has been made to grant relief to the petitioner which is not permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the basic principle is that the provision of Article 226 of Constitution of India can only be invoked if the parties have got any legal vested right or the action of the authorities is mala-fide but here in this case the authorities has taken all precaution to provide opportunity of being heard, notice has been issued to the petitioner, appeared and has given undertaking to pay the amount but not complied with. Thereafter appeal preferred, appeal dismissed in default. Hence, there is no mala-fide or arbitrary action on the part of the Bank. In view of the foregoing reasons, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. Petition Dismissed.