ORDER
Patil, J.
1. In these petitions, the petitioners are questioning the legality and validity of the impugned certificate dated 16.2.2001 as per Annexures D1 to D11 issued by the 1st respondent and the notices dated 14.5.2001 as per Annexures E1 to E11 issued by the 2nd respondents.
2. These petitioners are the agriculturists and availed loan fromthe 3rd respondent-Bank by hypothecating their lands for developing plantation at industrial level. Due to the failure of crops and also the failure of borewell dug by them, they have requested the concerned authorities for waiving off the loan and gave detailed representation. In pursuance of their request/representations, the concerned officers of the respondent No. 3 has visited the spot and gave report narrating the ground reality of the lands held by these petitioners as per Annexure- A,B and C respectively. Be that as it may. In view of the non payment of the instalments of the loan availed by the petitioners, the 3rd respondent has referred the matter to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has directed the 2nd respondent to initiate recovery procedings. The 2nd respondent has issued notices to the petitioners for recovery of the due amount payable by them, without following the procedure prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1974, and without giving any opportunity or conducting the enquiry. The entire proceedings initiated by the respondents are vitiated for non following the mandatory provisions of the Act, as referred to above. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned certificates as per Annexures D1 to D 11 issued by the 1st respondent and notices issued by the 2nd respondent as per Annexures E1 to E11, the petitioners have presented these Writ Petitions.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government pleader for R1 & 2 and the learned Counsel for R3 at a considerable length of time.
4. The principal submission canvassed by the leaned Counsel for the petitioners is that, the recovery proceedings initiated against these petitioners is without following the mandatory provisions as envisaged under the Karnataka Agricultural Credit operations and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1974 (hereinafter called as 'Act'). Further, he has vehemently submitted that the respondents have not conducted any enquiry nor given any opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their case and proceeded to issue notices for recovery of the amount due from the petitioners. To substantiate his submission, he has placed reliance on Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, he has submitted that the impugned certificates and notices issued by the respondents 1 & 2 are in violation of the principles of natural justice and they have not at all applied their mind and straightaway issued the certificates and notices in the printed proforma. This fact itself discloses that no enquiry as such was conducted by the respondents nor they have given any reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. Therefore, he has submitted that the certificates and the notices issued by the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, inter-alia, contended and justified the impugned certificates and notices issued by the respondents 1 and 2 as per Annexure-D1 to D11 and E1 to E11. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent has submitted that the notices were issued to the petitioners and the petitioners were not present before the authorities or filed their objections. In view of the non filing of the objection by the petitioners, the 1st respondent has proceeded to issue the certificates for recovery and in pursuance of that certificates, the 2nd respondent has issued notices for recovery against the petitioners after following the procedures prescribed in the Act. There is no violation or illegality committed by the authorities in issuing the impugned certificates and notices. Therefore, he has submitted that the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
6. After careful perusal of the entire materials available before this Court, especially, the impugned certificates and the notices issued by the respondents 1 and 2, they clearly establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that printed proforma has been issued by filling up the blanks which shows that the respondents have not followed the procedures prescribed under the Act, as stated supra. Therefore, in my considered view, the impugned certificates and notices issued by the respondents 1 and 2 as per Annexures -D1 and D11 and E1 and E11 are liable to be set aside for non compliance of the mandatory provisions as per Section 12 of the Act. As per Section 12 of the Act, it is clear that the concerned authorities after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard, may issue certificate of recovery of the amount. But in the instant case, after careful perusal of the certificates and notices issued by the respondents 1 and 2, no enquiry as such was conducted and no opportunity has been provided to the petitioners.
7. It is significant to note that in pursuance of the failure of the crops and due to draught in that area, the petitioners have given their representations to the respondents for waiving off the loan. In pursuance of the said representations/request, the competent authority made the spot inspection to find out the ground reality and ILR Mallappa & Ors. vs The A.R. of Co-op. So. & Ors. 2979 to submit their report. After assessing the ground reality of the lands, the concerned authorities have submitted their report as per Annexures A to C. When these materials are very much available on record, the respondents 1 and 2 were not justified in issuing certificates and notices to the petitioners for recovery of the loan amount, which shows that without application of mind the respondents 1 and 2 have issued the impugned certificates and notices. Therefore, I am of the view that, this fact itself suffice for this Court to set aside the impugned certificates and notices issued by the respondents 1 and 2 as per Annexures D1 to D11 and E1 to E11, without going further into the merits and demerits of the case.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and taking into consideration the factual and legal aspect of the matter, I do not find any justification to sustain the impugned certificates and notices issued by the respondents 1 and 2 as per Annexures - D1 to D11 and E1 to E11 and they are liable to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned certificates dated 16.2.2001 as per Annexures D1 to D11 issued by the 1st respondent and the impugned notices dated 14.5.2001 issued by the 2nd respondents as per Annexures E1 to E11 are hereby set aside.
The matters stand remitted back to the respondents 1 and 2 for fresh consideration with the following directions.
(i) The respondents 1 and 2 herein are directed to proceed with the matter in strict compliance with Section 12 of the Karnataka Agricultural Credit Co-operations and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, and to decide the same in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioners and the contesting respondent, as expeditiously as possible.
(ii) All the contentions of the petitioners and the contesting respondent are kept open.