LAWS(P&H)-1975-7-49

DURGA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On July 04, 1975
DURGA RAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is alleged that the petitioner obtained a short-term agricultural loan from the Saha Co-operative Agricultural Service Society, Saha (hereinafter called the Society). Respondent No. 3 sent a notice to him calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 748.15 to the Society. The father of the petitioner sent an application on February 15, 1973 to respondent No. 3 requesting him to hold an enquiry on the question of age of the petitioner. This demand was reiterated when the petitioner filed his objections before respondent No. 3 on March 23, 1973. It is further alleged that instead of giving him any opportunity of leading evidence, respondent No. 3 passed the following order :-

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner urges that before passing the above order, respondent No. 3 should have given some opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence on the question of his age. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that respondent No. 3 was only called upon to conduct a summary enquiry and since the petitioner did not appear before respondent No. 3 in spite of service, it was open to him to proceed in the matter.

(3.) In Pritam Singh and others v. State of Haryana, Co-operative Department, and others, 1973 PunLJ 738, I had an occasion to consider the constitutional validity of Section 67-A of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 , and upheld the same. Even if respondent No. 3 was to hold a summary enquiry, it does not mean that he could deviate from the principles of natural justice. Respondent No. 3 merely inspected the record of the Society and inferred that the petitioner was above the age of 18 years when he took the loan. A private enquiry of this type cannot be equated with an enquiry envisaged under the principles of natural justice in which an aggrieved party is to be given a real and effective hearing. I, therefore, quash the order dated April 13, 1973, passed by respondent No. 3 and direct him to redecide the question of age of the petitioner after giving him an opportunity of being heard.