- (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 :- "You are hereby informed on the subject noted above that I have personally perused the record of the Society that the age of Durga Ram at that time was 18 years and I have come to the conclusion that the loan which the Society has shown outstanding against Durga Ram is correct. In case you do not agree with it, you can move the Collector."
(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.;